Double free will and other problems

[ScottEmerson]

Originally posted by npetreley:
Then what you have is an absurd illusion of free will.

To paraphrase Martin Luther, you're admitting that if you let go of a rock in mid air, it will fall. The only possible way for it to go up is if you hold it and lift it up. In spite of this, you build an entire theology around the notion that God gave the rock the freedom to go up if it wishes to do so.[/QB]

Yet another false analogy. You guys love those things, huh? A rock is an object that has no will of its own and is incapable of movement. In the Arminian system, man does have a will that is able to choose or reject God. In fact, it is God who allowed man to have that.

I would maintain that a better analogy that would fit the Arminian system is the sound of a triangle in the Old West. The bell is ringing, saying, "Come unto me, all you who are weary, and take rest!" Everyone hears the bell, calling them to come partake. Everyone has a chance to say, "Sure! I'm hungry!" or "No, thanks - I'll tend to myself."

 

[ScottEmerson]

Originally posted by npetreley:

I have shown that these passages issue commands, exhortations, and instructions. Now the burden is upon you to prove free will from these passages.[/QB]

Very well. First, can we assume that the commands found here and in other passages are real commands? In other words, they are to be obeyed or disobeyed?

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by ScottEmerson:

Very well. First, can we assume that the commands found here and in other passages are real commands? In other words, they are to be obeyed or disobeyed?

We can agree and begin with the assumption that a command is obeyed or disobeyed. You cannot begin with the assumption that men are able to obey or disobey any given command unless scripture explicitly says so. You cannot "prove" from your logic, you must "prove" from scripture.

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by ScottEmerson:
A rock is an object that has no will of its own and is incapable of movement.

And that's precisely why it is a wonderful analogy. If the Arminian system agrees that one cannot "move" toward God without the enabling power of the Holy Spirit, then we have as much free will as a rock does to defy gravity on its own steam.

 

[Sularis]

*sigh* oh yes Im so glad that in this thread ALONE free will is under attack!

*mutters something that would be edited out*

The problem with your concept of foreknowledge is that youve assumed everything has happened, and we're just re-runs

You assume a single linear timeline - That is a pretty poor assumption

My God is active in new creative acts, My God is still active in the redemption of mankind

My God is not sitting on the couch watching a VCR

God knows all possibilties - God acts on all possibilities - God limits possibilities - but there is always more then one possibility except at the beginning and the end.

Let me actually deal with the questions

1 - equal in quality yes - equal in quantity no

2 - That again is pretty foolish assumption all anyone needs to be convicted is one sin - all anyone needs to be saved is one chance - the numbers of chances is not the determining factor - its the person's reaction to the drawing of the Holy Spirit

But lets be brutally honest about something - In non-Calvinism everyone has a chance to be saved - and the ability given by the Spirit to say yes

In Calvinism - they dont - I have yet to hear or read a Calvinist say someone will be saved from the general call - without reducing it to hypothetical so that they cant be accused of being flat out liars and purveyors of Satanic blasphemy.

Whats more kind and loving - everyone an equal quality of chance - or only certain people get a real chance - while the rest are duped by a half-chance

3A YES

3b - everyone gets a chance to go to heaven vs
Calvinism - only a few people get to go to heaven

Id say Calvinism is the more sadistic doctrine

Of course Calvinists can reply to this - but that wasnt the purpose of this diatribe

You guys are discussing the same thing over and over in different threads cant we consolidate - into - Foreknowledge thread - Free Will thread - and Original sin thread or something like that

 

[ScottEmerson]

Originally posted by npetreley:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by ScottEmerson:
A rock is an object that has no will of its own and is incapable of movement.

And that's precisely why it is a wonderful analogy. If the Arminian system agrees that one cannot "move" toward God without the enabling power of the Holy Spirit, then we have as much free will as a rock does to defy gravity on its own steam.</font>[/QUOTE]We cannot move without the call of the HOly Spirit, true - but all men are called - the chance for all to say "yes" or "no" is present for all. The free will is there. The ability to respond is there. I have never denied depravity, inability, nor the necessity for the Holy Spirit to call a man before he can say yes or no.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by Sularis:
The problem with your concept of foreknowledge is that youve assumed everything has happened, and we're just re-runs

First, it is not "my concept of foreknowledge." It is what Scripture teaches. Second, you make a plain misstatement when you say that we assume everything has happened. That doesn't even make sense. We are living in time according to the purpose of God who is working (present tense) all things after the counsel of his own will. God is working his will out in time.

You assume a single linear timeline - That is a pretty poor assumption

You want me to assume that but I have no idea what you are talking about. A "single linear timeline"??? What in the world ...

My God is active in new creative acts, My God is still active in the redemption of mankind

If you God is active in new creative acts, then he is not the God of Scripture. Creation was finished at the end of Gen 1. Now God through Christ is sustaining the world, holding it together. HE is not creating. However, God is still active in the redemption of man so on that we agree.

My God is not sitting on the couch watching a VCR

Is this the level to which you wish to stoop? This is an inane comment that serves no purpose. Nobody here believes God is doing that.

God knows all possibilties - God acts on all possibilities - God limits possibilities - but there is always more then one possibility except at the beginning and the end.

Again, this makes no sense. If God acts on all possibilities, how does he limit them? And if God acts on all possibilities, then how are they possibilities? Once he acts on them, they become actualities. But God cannot act on all possibilities (assuming everything else you have said is true) because the possibilities include mutually exclusive outcomes. In your scenario, if there are two possibilities (a person accepts or rejects), God can only act on one of them. I agree that God knows all possibilities, but he knows them only as possibilities. He is not sitting aroudn waiting to see what the outcome is.

1 - equal in quality yes - equal in quantity no

How does someone in prehistoric Africa have the same quality of chance as someone in the twenty first century Bible belt? Surely, you do not make this statement with a straight face.

In non-Calvinism everyone has a chance to be saved - and the ability given by the Spirit to say yes

What about those who never hear?

I have yet to hear or read a Calvinist say someone will be saved from the general call

Because they won't.

everyone gets a chance to go to heaven vs Calvinism - only a few people get to go to heaven

IN your system, only a few people get to go to heaven. IN Calvinism, everyone has a chance -- anyone who wants to can say yes. They are prevented by nothing other than their own desires.

Id say Calvinism is the more sadistic doctrine

But what you say is not the issue. What Scripture says is the issue.

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by ScottEmerson:
We cannot move without the call of the HOly Spirit, true - but all men are called - the chance for all to say "yes" or "no" is present for all. The free will is there. The ability to respond is there. I have never denied depravity, inability, nor the necessity for the Holy Spirit to call a man before he can say yes or no.

You are remarkably shifty in your arguments, but it won't wash. Here was your original statement:

Arminianism agrees that a man can only say "yes" through the drawing of the Holy Spirit.

The words "drawing" and "can" are scriptural in this context. Scripture does say both. No man can come to Jesus unless the Father draw him. No man can come to Jesus unless the Father enables him. "Can" == "enabled", so thus far you're perfectly in tune with scripture.

But now you switch from "drawing" to "call" as if nobody will notice the sudden change in terminology.

We cannot move without the call of the HOly Spirit, true - but all men are called

Drawing and calling are not the same thing. I can call you for dinner, and I can persuade you to eat it. But the two actions are not nearly identical.

Furthermore, while the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are One, they have different offices. So one cannot conclude that the drawing of one is equal to the drawing of another. So unless you can demonstrate that the call of God is the same thing as the call of the Holy Spirit, or the the drawing of Jesus is the same thing as the drawing of the Father, then it is unscriptural, if not intellectually dishonest, to mix up these concepts just to get to the conclusion you want.

The absurdity of the conclusion

In spite of all these missed distinctions, you come to this most astonishing conclusion:

but all men are called - the chance for all to say "yes" or "no" is present for all. The free will is there. The ability to respond is there.

!!! Calvinism agrees that all men are called. Calvinism agrees that the chance to say "yes" or "no" is present for all. But, without any scriptural support whatsoever, you manage to conclude that the call and the chance somehow prove ability and free will!!

So here is your reasoning in a nutshell:

1. It is scriptural and agreed upon that man cannot choose Christ without the enabling power of the Father. (No man can come to Jesus unless the Father enables him.)

From here...

You say the Spirit calls all men, and equate the call with the enabling power of God. Yet...

You provide no scripture to demonstrate that there is such a thing as the call of the Holy Spirit.

You provide no scripture to demonstrate that the call of God would be the same thing as the call of the Holy Spirit.

You provide no scripture to demonstrate that a call is the same thing as drawing.

You provide no scripture to demonstrate that the call is the same thing as enabling.

2. Therefore man is endowed with free will and can choose Christ of his own free will.

Assuming the reader is a chicken without a beak, such reasoning is indeed impeccable.

[ January 27, 2003, 01:19 PM: Message edited by: npetreley ]

 

[Sularis]

Single Linear time
past -------- present -------- future

We both agree that God is currently working out His will - but your viewpoint in my understanding is that He's already seen every thing from past to future and since theres only one path - it basically is a matter of "do or do not there is no try" sorry couldnt resist

Again Ill try and diagram

God's foreknowledge
past -------- present -------- future

God's acting out His will
past -------- present -------- future

One path one choice no difference - simply put a rerun

My view

\=sin -=no sin /=Gods actions
Gods foreknowledge
past - Eve - Adam -
\ hadnt hidden and confessed sin
Adam /
\
Cain and Abel - Cain and Abel
\
Cain
It goes on like this until Noah
rainbow
/
saved by obedience to God - no rainbow
Noah /
\
human race wiped out restart


Jesus - 40 days - crucified - universal redeem
\ \
No Messiah refused to die No Messiah

/
/ -
Present - \
\

Future see present

God's acting out His will --- Future
/--------- /
past -------Present - ----------- \-------- /

God in His interaction with mans choices upon seeing what choice he made - God then countermoved to balance it so that the future is still what He wants it to be, but He has presented, or allowed us a limited choice set within we work, and He then balances.

As in creative acts there are still new stars being born - babies are coming into the world

Now for God acting and creating multiple actualities - Nuh uh - Hes outside time, only when He reaches into time and does something does He create actuality. God acts on all possibilties by knowing what needs to be done to turn that possibilty if it happens to His will and purpose - even Adam sinning - or Adam not sinning. Certain possibilities God pre-emptively acts to prevent - others He will let happen and deal with as He chooses to having planned for all the possibilities.

You saying the grace of God which is infinite cannot reach an African by vision or direct intervention - when we fail in our duties?
Bah God's bigger then us - If we fail in our job of evangelism, He will step in make sure everyone gets a chance - but we as a church will suffer for our failure - for every lost soul - that we could have given more chances to, by being there and preaching. after all Faith comes by hearing the Word - not the Bible - the Word - ie God

Larry
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have yet to hear or read a Calvinist say someone will be saved from the general call
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Because they won't.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
everyone gets a chance to go to heaven vs Calvinism - only a few people get to go to heaven
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

IN your system, only a few people get to go to heaven. IN Calvinism, everyone has a chance -- anyone who wants to can say yes. They are prevented by nothing other than their own desires.

Read what you post man - if no one will be saved from the general call which you yourself said will happen then its not a chance!! - not everyone will have a chance - Yes its true few people in my system will go to heaven - but guess what - everyone got a call that could actually save them had they cared to.

Unless you want to say that a general call is sufficient unto salvation - and that there may be general call Christians out there

No Larry - what you think God says isnt the issue its what God really says that is

 

[npetreley]

(emphasis mine)

Originally posted by Sularis:
Yes its true few people in my system will go to heaven - but guess what - everyone got a call that could actually save them had they cared to.

No Larry - what you think God says isnt the issue its what God really says that is

]

Perhaps you should take your own advice, since your system is not what matters.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by Sularis:
but your viewpoint in my understanding is that He's already seen every thing from past to future and since theres only one path - it basically is a matter of "do or do not there is no try"

Unless you are an open thiest, then you are no different.

God in His interaction with mans choices upon seeing what choice he made - God then countermoved to balance it so that the future is still what He wants it to be, but He has presented, or allowed us a limited choice set within we work, and He then balances.

But notice how there is no Scripture here. The Bible does not say that God is countermoving to balance anything. The Bible says that God is working all things after the counsel of his own will. Notice 1) God is working, not reacting; 2) his work involves all things, including the choices of men; 3) he working things after the counsel of his will, not in response to man's choice in an effort to balance them out.

You saying the grace of God which is infinite cannot reach an African by vision or direct intervention - when we fail in our duties?

I didn't say that and you know it. YOU ARe again making stuff up to try to support your point. STOP IT. Do not make stuff up. I don't think the grace of God is limited by us in anyway. God has made plain in Scripture that he intends to save his elect by their belief in the message of Christ.

He will step in make sure everyone gets a chance

Again, notice the lack of Scripture. This is not what Scripture says.

Faith comes by hearing the Word - not the Bible - the Word - ie God

The Scripture is the Word of God that must be preached. IT is the message about Christ. But this is in reality a small distinction because the Scripture is the message about Christ.

Read what you post man - if no one will be saved from the general call which you yourself said will happen then its not a chance!![/qutoe]That's not true. It is a chance. They can respond at any time they want to.

Yes its true few people in my system will go to heaven - but guess what - everyone got a call that could actually save them had they cared to.

As they do in my system.

No Larry - what you think God says isnt the issue its what God really says that is

When God says he elects them, it is not my option to redefine election to something other than election. YOU are right that what I think he says is not the issue. We are dealing with the clear statements of Scripture.

 

[Yelsew]

No Larry - what you think God says isnt the issue its what God really says that is

GOD SAID (John 3:16,18) Whosever, me, you, we, they, us, them, All, part, some, most, everyone, inclusive, individuals, etc.

Believeth, hears (in the action sense), is persuaded, is convinced, has a mind set upon, holds the conviction that, etc.

Will, shall, should, may, etc.,

Have, possess, receive, "own", etc.

Eternal life, never ending life, everlasting life, life without end, never perishing and no vacations!

Quite definite statement from God!

 

[ScottEmerson]

Originally posted by npetreley:
You are remarkably shifty in your arguments, but it won't wash. Here was your original statement:

Only because you are inferring your own definition of terms onto mine.

The words "drawing" and "can" are scriptural in this context. Scripture does say both. No man can come to Jesus unless the Father draw him. No man can come to Jesus unless the Father enables him. "Can" == "enabled", so thus far you're perfectly in tune with scripture.

Very well.

But now you switch from "drawing" to "call" as if nobody will notice the sudden change in terminology.

It's because they are the same.

Drawing and calling are not the same thing. I can call you for dinner, and I can persuade you to eat it. But the two actions are not nearly identical.

Only in your system of belief. They are one and the same in Arminian theology.

Furthermore, while the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are One, they have different offices. So one cannot conclude that the drawing of one is equal to the drawing of another. So unless you can demonstrate that the call of God is the same thing as the call of the Holy Spirit, or the the drawing of Jesus is the same thing as the drawing of the Father, then it is unscriptural, if not intellectually dishonest, to mix up these concepts just to get to the conclusion you want.

It is the Holy Spirit that leads us to repentence. Christ does not call anymore - he is at the right hand of God, making intercession for us. Yet it is Christ who made the ultimate sacrifice. Jesus no longer draws us - that is the Holy Spirit's job now, as Jesus is in heaven. Nevertheless, all are parts of the Godhead.

In spite of all these missed distinctions, you come to this most astonishing conclusion:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />but all men are called - the chance for all to say "yes" or "no" is present for all. The free will is there. The ability to respond is there.

!!! Calvinism agrees that all men are called. Calvinism agrees that the chance to say "yes" or "no" is present for all.</font>[/QUOTE]So Calvinism would agree that it is possible for a "non-elect" to say "yes?" Hmmmm... That strikes me as completely antithetical to the teachings of Calvin, and to what Calvinists have been saying on this board. Is it also possible for a "non-elect" to say "no?" ...speaking of absurd...

But, without any scriptural support whatsoever, you manage to conclude that the call and the chance somehow prove ability and free will!!

Because the evidence to the contrary is insufficient. All men are drawn, as evidenced by the words of Christ himself. Not all say yes, as evidenced by the existence of Hell. What is the result? That man must somehow have the ability to say "no." If man has the ability to say "no" and "yes," then he must, in this area, have free will over what he chooses to decide.

So here is your reasoning in a nutshell:

1. It is scriptural and agreed upon that man cannot choose Christ without the enabling power of the Father. (No man can come to Jesus unless the Father enables him.)

And all men are drawn, okay.

From here...

You say the Spirit calls all men, and equate the call with the enabling power of God. Yet...

Is there evidence to the contrary?

You provide no scripture to demonstrate that there is such a thing as the call of the Holy Spirit.

John 16:8-11 shows that after Christ left, the Holy Spirit would convict man of sin.

You provide no scripture to demonstrate that the call of God would be the same thing as the call of the Holy Spirit.

Why wouldn't it be - the Holy Spirit is God - different from the Father, but still God.

You provide no scripture to demonstrate that a call is the same thing as drawing.

So there's a difference? Where?

You provide no scripture to demonstrate that the call is the same thing as enabling.

Ah, but you see "enabling" as a certain "coming." I see "enabling" as inviting to make a choice. I wonder if that makes a difference.

2. Therefore man is endowed with free will and can choose Christ of his own free will.

There are other steps that you are missing - parts that I've mentioned from the beginning, but you're getting closer.

Assuming the reader is a chicken without a beak, such reasoning is indeed impeccable.

Only because you are reading your own definitions into the words I'm using - things you've been doing from the very beginning... but I'm used to such things by now.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by Yelsew:
GOD SAID .... Quite definite statement from God!

And if you have been reading along here, you know that I agree with every word of that. Whoever believes will have eternal life. Whoever wants it can have it -- we keep saying that but you keep telling us we don't believe it. It is time for you to start listening to what we are saying and assume that we know what we believe ...

You want to focus on teh "whoever" while we think it falls to short. It is "whoever believes" and "whosoever will." You cannot just ignore that part of it.

 

[Yelsew]

Then why all the talk of predetermination of "the elect". God opened heaven for all not just an elect. Therefore all who believe God's Son Jesus become the elect by virtue of belief which is exercise of human free will.

Like it or not, that is what God says.

 

[npetreley]

after all Faith comes by hearing the Word - not the Bible - the Word - ie God

Actually, hearing comes by the word of God. Once one is enabled to hear, faith comes by hearing. That is what the verse says: "So then faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God."

The Greek word translated as "word" is "rhema", not "logos." "Rhema" means "utterance". The use of "rhema" here implies that a special utterance by God is necessary for us to hear what we would need to hear in order to have faith.

 

[Yelsew]

The Greek word translated as "word" is "rhema", not "logos." "Rhema" means "utterance". The use of "rhema" here implies that a special utterance by God is necessary for us to hear what we would need to hear in order to have faith.

How do you get that it is a "special utterance". Would the priest reading the scrolls not be 'an utterance'? The word of God is being uttered by a priest (or anyone who can read aloud), so that anyone who can hear is able to "hear" the word of God. Some preachers utter the word of God sometimes, others utter the word of God most of the time, but none of the preachers utter the word of God all of the time.

It is true that the truth from the word of God is spoken with the mouth and heard by the ear, but the spirit determines "hearing". For it is the spirit that accepts or rejects what is uttered and heard.

 

[Ray Berrian]

Perhaps the concept of 'an age of accountability'within Christendom comes out of II Samuel 12:23. Because of David and Bathsheba's sin God took away that son because of His judgment that came into their lives. David understood that the child could not return to him from the dead, but he was keenly aware that one day he would see his son in Heaven. The child clearly had no opportunity to become a responsive believer in Jehovah God.

The other aspect of the topic is the free agency of all human beings. This is documented in the Word and is learned by most of us at an early age in Sunday School. 'For God so love the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him shall not perish but have everlasting life. [John 3:16]

Is this what you mean by "Double Free Will And Other Related Problems?

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by ScottEmerson:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />But now you switch from "drawing" to "call" as if nobody will notice the sudden change in terminology.

It's because they are the same.

Drawing and calling are not the same thing. I can call you for dinner, and I can persuade you to eat it. But the two actions are not nearly identical.

Only in your system of belief. They are one and the same in Arminian theology. </font>[/QUOTE]If that is true, then you have demonstrated one reason why Arminian theology is not Biblical.

John 6:65 And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.

"Given unto him" is the Greek "didomi", and is translated in the NIV as "enabled".

John 6:44 "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up at the last day.

The word is "helkuo", to drag off, or to impel.

1 Corinthians 7:15 God has called us to live in peace.

The word is "kaleo", to call aloud.

2 Timothy 1:9 who has saved us and called us to a holy life

The word is again "kaleo".

So there is a very big difference between "called", "enabled" and "drawn". While we're on the subject, notice this particular usage of the word "called":

Romans 1:6 "And you also are among those who are called to belong to Jesus Christ."

When the word is used in this context, it is usually "kletos", but in some cases "klesis". Both mean to be invited to a feast. This word is similar to "kaleo" but stronger despite today's understanding of what an invitation is, since when a king invited you to a feast, you pretty much went or you got your head lopped off.

Are you beginning to see a pattern here? Not only are drawing and calling different, but there's a specific way of referring to the "called" when it refers to something we are supposed to do, and something we cannot refuse without dire consequences.

So they are not at all the same in the Bible. Perhaps you are comfortable with the idea that Arminian theology doesn't need to conform to what the Bible says, and that's why they are one and the same in Arminian theology.

Originally posted by ScottEmerson:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />!! Calvinism agrees that all men are called. Calvinism agrees that the chance to say "yes" or "no" is present for all.

So Calvinism would agree that it is possible for a "non-elect" to say "yes?"</font>[/QUOTE]That's not what I said. I said the chance to say "yes" or "no" is present for all, not the inclination or ability.

Originally posted by ScottEmerson:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />But, without any scriptural support whatsoever, you manage to conclude that the call and the chance somehow prove ability and free will!!

Because the evidence to the contrary is insufficient. All men are drawn, as evidenced by the words of Christ himself.</font>[/QUOTE]I assume you are referring to John 12:32.

John 12:32 But I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to myself."

Yes, John 12:32 has Jesus saying He will draw all men unto Him in the NIV. The NIV also translates "given unto" as "enabled". But neither translation is accurate. Ever wonder why the New King James translates it this way?

John 12:32 And I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all peoples to Myself."

It is because the word "men" (and even the word "peoples" is not in the Greek. Jesus literally says He will draw "all" unto Himself. All of whom is not specified in this statement.

Originally posted by ScottEmerson:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />You say the Spirit calls all men, and equate the call with the enabling power of God. Yet...

Is there evidence to the contrary?</font>[/QUOTE]You are the one who says it's true. The burden of proof is upon you to provide scripture that says the Spirit calls all men. That's what I said. You provide no such scripture.

Originally posted by ScottEmerson:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />You provide no scripture to demonstrate that there is such a thing as the call of the Holy Spirit.

John 16:8-11 shows that after Christ left, the Holy Spirit would convict man of sin.</font>[/QUOTE]That does not say the Spirit calls all men. Jesus reproved the Pharisees of sin, yet I didn't see him "calling" the Pharisees.

Originally posted by ScottEmerson:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />You provide no scripture to demonstrate that a call is the same thing as drawing.

So there's a difference? Where?</font>[/QUOTE]See above. So where's your scripture that shows they are the same?

Originally posted by ScottEmerson:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />You provide no scripture to demonstrate that the call is the same thing as enabling.

Ah, but you see "enabling" as a certain "coming." I see "enabling" as inviting to make a choice. I wonder if that makes a difference.</font>[/QUOTE]Yes, it does make a difference. "Enabling" in the Bible means being given the ability by the Father. Enabling in your head and Arminian theology means "being invited". [sarcasm] Slight difference. [/sarcasm] The fact that you "see" it differently doesn't change the meaning to what you wish it to be.

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by Yelsew:
[QB]

The Greek word translated as "word" is "rhema", not "logos." "Rhema" means "utterance". The use of "rhema" here implies that a special utterance by God is necessary for us to hear what we would need to hear in order to have faith.

How do you get that it is a "special utterance". Would the priest reading the scrolls not be 'an utterance'?

John 1:1 "In the beginning was the Word."

Logos.

Acts 13:44 "And the next sabbath day came almost the whole city together to hear the word of God."

Logos.

Acts 18:11 "And he continued there a year and six months, teaching the word of God among them."

Logos.

Romans 9:6 "Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect."

Logos.

1 Corinthians 14:36 "What? came the word of God out from you? or came it unto you only?"

Logos.

Acts 11:16 "Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost."

Aha!! Rhema! Why? It is something the Lord actually said, not the written word of God or scripture. Literally, he remembered the "utterance" of the Lord, something spoken aloud.

So faith comes by hearing, and hearing comes by the utterance of God. Not by the utterance of a priest reading the Word (Logos) of God. Not the utterance of a friend reading the Word of God. The "utterance of God".

(edited to add...)

I don't know how I could have forgotten the most obvious verse...

Matthew 4:4 Jesus answered, "It is written: 'Man does not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God.'[ 4:4 Deut. 8:3] "

Rhema. Utterance.

[ January 27, 2003, 11:52 PM: Message edited by: npetreley ]