grace or pure sovereignty?

One of the differences between us and the Calvinists is that we really do believe Jesus when He spoke the words found in John 3:18. Calvinists deny this meaning; in fact they believe that God damns the majority and only autocratically saves His elect. Our Lord said, 'For God sent not His Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through Him might be saved.'

You would agree with me that God loved the Laodicean Church. But the Calvinists would deny that His love is extended to all of the lost ones. If He loves His church it is only truthful to say that He loves sinners, especially in light of John 3:18. Again, Jesus said, ' . . . God sent not His Son into the world to condemn the world . . . ' but actively loves the lost that through His blessed Name they might be saved.

Faith and trust in Him opens to us the Presence of the Holy Spirit in our lives. When we hear the general call of the Spirit and open the door of our lives to Him, He will not refuse our request of owning Jesus as personal Savior.

If anyone wishes to discuss this truth, please stay with the two Scriptures as noted above. I know well your dogma; I like it best to hear your interpretation of the Word.

 

Ray, once again you have shown us your complete ignorance of what calvinist really believe.

 

Those two verses must be understood within the overall context of the Bible which clearly teaches that before regeneration man is unable to lift a finger toward repenting and believing. I think your main problem, Ray, is that you try to arrive at an understanding of verses divorced from the the overall context of the Bible which clearly teaches that man needs God to save him. The Bible does not teach that man can save himself.

 

That sounds very familiar to many of the debates by arminians in this board. Break it up explain them individually, then try to tape it back together even if it doesn't make sense that way, at least we can explain away what we don't like. Right?

 

Not taking in the whole context of the Word was a nice 'hiding place' for you who do not have the Biblical answers. Again, we all can see that you refuse to stay with the Scripture that I asked you to please interpret. But we do understand your plight.

Was God incorrect to say in John 3:17 that He indeed did send His Son into the world not to condemn it but, through Christ, to save them?

 

Those two verses must be understood within the overall context of the Bible which clearly teaches that before regeneration man is unable to lift a finger toward repenting and believing. I think your main problem, Ray, is that you try to arrive at an understanding of verses divorced from the the overall context of the Bible which clearly teaches that man needs God to save him. The Bible does not teach that man can save himself. </font>[/QUOTE]It is wrong to insist that the context of John 3:18 is the entire holy scripture. The context is clearly Jesus' discourse with Nicodemus the Pharisee, and has nothing, whatever, to do with Jesus' raising of Lazarus from the dead or Noah's building of the ARK or ... You get the message.

 

Ray, you asked
Was God incorrect to say in John 3:17 that He indeed did send His Son into the world not to condemn it but, through Christ, to save them?

No, God is never incorrect. You make it seem like calvinist throw this verse away? We don't, we rely on it as well as the rest of them. God came to save sinners, He came to appease the wrath of God so that God might rightfully show mercy. This verse speeks more about His mercy, being that if Christ did not die, it would just be another accusation against us. The Law spoke against us because it showed us that we were condemned, then Christ came and was obedient to the law, so now we have illiminated the curve, so to speak. But the intent of His coming was not to have another witness against us, it was to die so as to appease the wrath of God so that He (Jesus) might make Him (God) one who is just and one who justifies.

You see this verse does not go against calvinism. Unless you mean that the world means everyone in the world. But if you mean that Christ came to save everyone in the world, then everyone would be saved. We know that this is not true, so we know the verse means that He came to save those who are in the world, not the entire world. You see it as those who choose him, I see it as the elect. So this is not the last blow to our doctrine. It is no blow at all.

 

Made me like what? Lost? Find fault with what? Being charged with Adam's sin and left that way (with no choice)?
This should make it obvious that these passages are not speaking of preterition or reprobation. God did npt say He had to save all, but then He did say to whom much is given, much is expected. Here you have people given nothing with everything expected of them.

"seek" in the Hebrew and Greek word translated here means to "frequent" or "follow" ("for pursuit or search"), or "search out", "investigate", "crave", "demand", and ultimately "worship". God giving an offer of salvation to man, and man accepting (of his own will) does not violate this, as that does not constitute things like "craving", "demanding", or even "pursuit", "search" and "investigate" in a sense that man initiates it. Man certainly doesn't on his own worship God (which these senses are really pointing to, for one "craving" Him would worship Him [properly]), and that is the point of the Psalm Paul quoted from. Paul's own context was the sinfulness of all men in general, Jew as well as gentile, not an individual's inability to repent. (Because the Jews thought only gentiles were "sinners", yet the Psalm is pointing out their sin as well). It has nothing to do with man responding to a call.

So this is supposed to be the doctrine of election and preterition they are offended at? Look at the context (preceding passages). It was the idea of 'eating His flesh" they were thrown by.

Then why isn't the person redeemed when his is regenerated? How could someone "born again" still be lost? Since redemption is the ultimate goal, not faith or even "repentance" (those are means to an end), then faith wouldn't be necesary, it would just be a formal ticket to Heaven. (What happens to a regenerate person who dies before they "repent"? I guess God would 1) never let that happen, or 2) still regard them as non-elect —like Calvin's people who He only gives a false or partial faith to and then takes it away; or 3)just skip the formality and accept them into Heaven anyway

Nobody is saying man saves himself

 

Then what of Romans 3:??

There is no one righteous, not even one; "Righteous" is a condition requiring an ability. The lack of Righteousness does not correspondingly imply the lack of ability, but rather the wrong use of the ability. A vase has the ability to hold a bouquet of flowers, but if the vase is turned upside down, which is the wrong use of a vase, then it does not hold a boquet of flowers.

"there is no one who understands," Like Righteous, Understanding requires an ability. but lack thereof does not imply the ability is not there, but that is wrongly used.

"there is no one who seeks God." Seeking God requires is an ability to do so plus a desire to do so. One most definately has the abilility to seek whomever one wants to find, but without a desire to seek God, one will not do so.

"All have turned away, together they have become useless" Turning away definately requires ability to do so, and inherent ability to turn away clearly means the ability to turn is present in the one doing the turning.

"there is no one who does good, there is not even one." Doing anything requires the ability to do it, if one turns away from doing good, one turns to doing bad. So the ability to do is inherent in mankind but in Pauls illustration it appears that no one desires to do good so they do bad.

The bottom line is that man inherently has the ability to do, and to be, but chooses to use the God given ability for the wrong purposes. Satan has deceived mankind into neglecting God and all his silly rules for successful life in favor of doing and being what man finds "comfortable to live with".
Romans 3:?? simply does not support the concept that man does not have the ability. It does most definately support man's desire to use his God given abilities for the wrong purposes.

 

Yelsew, righteousness is not a condition requiring ability, it is a position. That is where we are made righteous. It doesn't mean we have the ability to make ourself righteous. You jump to a big conclusion here.

 

Paul makes a judgment call. To be judged unrighteous, one must have the ability to be judged righteous. The ability to be righteous or unrighteous is resident in man, but because of the knowledge of good and evil in man, man most often does not measure up to God's standard of Righteousness, and settles for second best.

 

Where does Paul do this, it is not Romans 3, read just before that it says that we are all condemned.

And you believe that man "most often does not meet God's standard of righteousness"? That is funny because scripture just stated right there that there is no man that is righteous.

Yelsew, you cannot actually believe that Paul is stating in Romans 3 that man has ability? That is the funniest thing I have seen in a while. Someone using Romans 3 to argue the fact that we have ability. Give me a break.

 

sturgman;
I believe it's three post back
Romanbear

 

here it is again for Sturgman's benefit

 

AKI,

Would you agree that the very first sin was not the eating of the fruit of the tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, but rather Disobedience of God's command to not do so? No man but Adam and Eve has even had the least opportunity to eat of that tree. However every human that has ever lived has had the opportunity to disobey "authority", and virtually everyone succeeds.

Because Adam and Eve both ate of the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of good and evil, that knowledge became part of the essence of the human species and is handed down from generation to generation. God created man to be able to absorb knowledge, so the knowledge of good and evil found its home in man. I suppose one could blame God for that, but if man had obeyed God, man would not have gained that knowledge, and we would not be discussing it. Furthermore, the first sin that anyone does is deobedience of "authority", before most of us know the name for what we do.

I know there are a variety of definitions, and my post was to solicit the definition that you adhere to. You have not stated your definition.

[ February 28, 2003, 01:48 AM: Message edited by: Yelsew ]

 

You're reading too much into the text. It does not say Adam's sin was "imputed" to us,jut that by him sin entered into the world, meaning he passed his sin nature down to us. I think a lot of the problem is overgeneralization. We know we are not saved by works, but rather the condition of Righteousness imputed to us from Christ, so we also think people must not really be condemned by works either, but rather the imputation of a condition of sin from Adam. But it is not that symmetrical. The Bible clearly says condemned by works; saved by grace.

 

The point of Romans 5 is that we become righteous the same way we became sinners. The "just as/so" comparisons between the sin of one man and the righteousness of one man shows that we were made sinners by imputation so that we can be made righteous by imputation.

 

Aki et al

Yes, I agree with you. I may not have stated myself in a clear manner. Yes we are condemned because of Adam's sin--even if we commit no sins of our own. I'm sorry if you got the impression that I thought otherwise.

There are two concepts at work here. The answer to the first question is this: We carry a LEGAL standing of guilt before God. This deals with a concept called "Federal Headship." Adam is the federal head of the entire human race. He acted as our representative before God. When he fell, all of him fell. He, then, passed that legal guilty standing on to all of his descendants.

This concept is seen in Hebrews 7. In this passage the author is telling of how the priesthood of Melchizedek is superior to the priesthood of Levi. He writes . 4 Now consider how great this man was, to whom even Abraham the patriarch gave a tenth of the plunder! 5 The sons of Levi who receive the priestly office have a commandment according to the law to collect a tenth from the people--that is, from their brothers--though they have also descended from Abraham. 6 But one without this lineage collected tithes from Abraham and blessed the one who had the promises. 7 Without a doubt, the inferior is blessed by the superior. 8 In the one case, men who will die receive tithes; but in the other case, Scripture testifies that he lives. 9 And in a sense Levi himself, who receives tithes, has paid tithes through Abraham, 10 for he was still within his forefather when Melchizedek met him.


Verse 10 is of high importance. It says that Levi paid tithes to Melchizedek! How is that possible. Levi was not born for some time! Besides, he was born of Jacob, Abraham's grandson. How can the great-grandson of someone do the same "action," as it were, as Abraham? Simple, as the Bible explains: Levi was still within his forefather when Melchizedek met him. Another translation, which I prefer, is that Levi was "Still in the loins" of Abraham...

This concept show the Federal imputation of sin from Adam to all his progeny.

This may seem like a bum deal! However, it is important to call it like it is. Why? Because the Federal Headship comes up again with Christ. This Adam-Christ distinction is VERY important to Biblical theology. (Note: This is why a Limited Atonement must be understood. I'll do more on that later.)

If we are human, Adam is our federal head. That leaves us in a boat-load of trouble. However, if we are Christians, we are under a different Federal Head. That is the Good news!

More to come...

Blessings,

Archangel

 

Was Jesus condemned?

The sins of the Fathers do not condemn the sons!