How can a man “lose his soul”?

[MB]

So you and IoDebar deny God’s Omnipotence?! That would be refreshing.

LOL You are the funny one aren't you. You are another one who some how see's things that are just not in my post. How can God remain sovereign and allow men to sin against His will?.
MB

 

[MartyF]

You are another one who some how see's things that are just not in my post.

Not at all. Not at all. Why do you think I put a question mark there? I wanted to be sure about what you believed. But you dodged the question.

Do you deny God’s omnipotence?

How can God remain sovereign and allow men to sin against His will?

Well, that matters if you want my own opinion or what I believe the opinion of a Calvinist would be.

A Calvinist I believe would equate Sovereignty with Omnipotence. However, I do not.

So a Calvinist would say that God actually causes men to sin because that is his will. We cannot judge God.

I would say sovereign as used in the Bible is a title meaning ruler.

Exodus 34:23 NLT
[23] Three times each year every man in Israel must appear before the Sovereign, the LORD, the God of Israel.

A ruler doesn’t control all the actions of the ruled.

But back to the question you dodged.

Do you deny God’s omnipotence?

 

[37818]

. . . a Calvinist would say that God actually causes men to sin . . .

I am not a Calvinist. Prove your assertion.

 

[FollowTheWay]

The only souls that are eternal are the souls not lost.

Are you saying you don't believe in the reality of Hell, eternal punishment for the damned?

 

[FollowTheWay]

So you're seeking to assert that it's not actually talking about losing one's salvation by steering away from using "soul"?? I'm unclear as to your reason for putting down this verse and yes I did read InTheLight's post as well.

If so look then at what you'd be saying....it would therefore mean you could gain the whole world and ultimately everything would be fine. Scripture says though the love of the world is enmity with God. It would mean you really don't have to take up your cross and follow Jesus for remember that's in the verse right beside it. That would mean you could even be ashamed of Jesus and his words with no concerns of not having Jesus not willing to confess your name before the Father and the Holy angels at the judgment. Does this seem reasonable to you? See the whole passage of Luke 9 : 23,26 below and not just verses 24,25 that you quoted.

(23) And he said to them all, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow me. (24) For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: but whosoever will lose his life for my sake, the same shall save it. (25) For what is a man advantaged, if he gain the whole world, and lose himself, or be cast away? (26) For whosoever shall be ashamed of me and of my words, of him shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he shall come in his own glory, and in his Father's, and of the holy angels. Luke 9: 23,26

This of course is the sad story of the rich young ruler who wanted for Jesus to be his Savior but whose master was money.

 

[37818]

Are you saying you don't believe in the reality of Hell, eternal punishment for the damned?

I believe two things. The mortality of the soul in the second death (Ezekiel 18:4; Matthew 10:28; James 5:20). And the eternal suffering of the lost (Mark 9:48; Revelation 14:10-11). I do not believe in annihlationism.

 

[MartyF]

I am not a Calvinist. Prove your assertion.

Why should I? The multitude of Calvinists on this forum can correct me if they want. Gripe at MB. He was the one to ask me a Calvinist question.

In the Words of John Calvin – Is God the Author of Sin?

Seems pretty clear to me.

 

[MB]

Not at all. Not at all. Why do you think I put a question mark there? I wanted to be sure about what you believed. But you dodged the question.

No I do not deny God is all powerful and the word sovereignty. Well that isn't even found in scripture

Do you deny God’s omnipotence?

No

Well, that matters if you want my own opinion or what I believe the opinion of a Calvinist would be.

What you personally believe personally would be sufficient.

A Calvinist I believe would equate Sovereignty with Omnipotence. However, I do not.

Sovereignty doesn't describe what and who God is. Especially with Calvinist. You see they often take the word beyond it's original meaning. In that they use it to restrict God to things that are not biblical. Such as limited atonement, and individual election. In fact the entire tulip. I do not believe any of it is biblical.

So a Calvinist would say that God actually causes men to sin because that is his will. We cannot judge God.

I wouldn't even try to judge God. God does not sin, nor does He take part in tempting man to sin. or cause men to sin. Men do a good enough job of sinning them selves.

I would say sovereign as used in the Bible is a title meaning ruler.

The word Sovereign is not in scripture

Exodus 34:23 NLT
[23] Three times each year every man in Israel must appear before the Sovereign, the LORD, the God of Israel.

The problem with newer versions is they have added and taken away from scripture. A very grave sin The word sovereign is not in the original manuscripts
Exo 34:23 Thrice in the year shall all your men children appear before the Lord GOD, the God of Israel. KJV
A ruler doesn’t control all the actions of the ruled.
Exo 34:23 'Three times in a year do all thy males appear before the Lord Jehovah, God of Israel; The YLT

But back to the question you dodged.

Do you deny God’s omnipotence?

No I do not. I believe that God is in control. However that does not mean He has not allowed man a choice of whether to believe in Him or not.
By the way I do not dodge. I did not dodge I was in a hurry.
MB

 

[MartyF]

Sovereignty

You chose this word - not me. It ludicrously silly to complain about a word you introduced in the conversation. I’m not particularly fond of the word but I answered with it because you introduced it in your question.

As for translations, if you want to accuse a hundred bible scholars of a very grave sin, that’s on you. I’ll leave you to your unicorns and cockatrices.

However that does not mean He has not allowed man a choice of whether to believe in Him or not.

So, I assuming that you do not believe that God controls all of our actions. Is that true? That means that you do not believe in omnipotence the same way a classical theist does.

 

[MB]

You chose this word - not me. It ludicrously silly to complain about a word you introduced in the conversation. I’m not particularly fond of the word but I answered with it because you introduced it in your question.

As for translations, if you want to accuse a hundred bible scholars of a very grave sin, that’s on you. I’ll leave you to your unicorns and cockatrices.



So, I assuming that you do not believe that God controls all of our actions. Is that true? That means that you do not believe in omnipotence the same way a classical theist does.

Just because God can control everything does not mean that He does. It means God can do what ever He pleases The burden of proof is on you Prove God does control everything. Our every word , all our sins, every thought. It seems what you believe is with out merit. I could care less about a video that some one else made videos do not prove anything. This argument is between me and you so prove your point,
MB

 

[FollowTheWay]

I believe two things. The mortality of the soul in the second death (Ezekiel 18:4; Matthew 10:28; James 5:20). And the eternal suffering of the lost (Mark 9:48; Revelation 14:10-11). I do not believe in annihlationism.

I agree. Thanks.

 

[MartyF]

Just because God can control everything does not mean that He does. It means God can do what ever He pleases The burden of proof is on you Prove God does control everything. Our every word , all our sins, every thought. It seems what you believe is with out merit. I could care less about a video that some one else made videos do not prove anything. This argument is between me and you so prove your point,
MB

I do not believe that God is omnipotent. That is a Calvinist belief.

I wanted to make sure that was clear. I do not believe that God is omnipotent.

My question was more about whether you believed God was omnipotent. And you don’t believe in omnipotence at least not in the classical sense. You seem to have redefined omnipotence to mean something else. You believe that God can do whatever he pleases.

What I was trying to point out is that this is not the omnipotence of classical theism.

If God lends or gives up his power to allow anyone else to have the power to do something without him, including having a thought, then he is no longer omnipotent. He either has to allow the free action or not. By allowing power outside of himself, he is no longer omnipotent.

 

[Wesley Briggman]

Wesley, it depends on how we define free will. When a sinner places his faith in Christ, he certainly does so freely. This is a natural response to the effectual call. Having been freed from the bondage of sin, this individual wants nothing other than Christ. What the sinner does not have is an autonomous free will that can resist the effectual call of the Holy Spirit. In the Monergist Ordo Salutis repentance precedes faith and in the Synergist Ordo Salutis faith precedes regeneration. This is the crux of the disagreement.

Rom 6:16 KJV - Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?
We are all servants. The question is, who is our master? Servants are not granted freewill. I consider myself a bond-servant of Jesus Christ.

Here is one Greek word that was translated as "free" in the New Testament:

Lexicon :: Strong's G1658 - eleutheros
The KJV translates Strong's G1658 in the following manner: free (18x), free woman (3x), at liberty (1x), free man (1x).
Outline of Biblical Usage [?]
1. freeborn
2. in a civil sense, one who is not a slave
3. of one who ceases to be a slave, freed, manumitted
4. free, exempt, unrestrained, not bound by an obligation
5. in an ethical sense: free from the yoke of the Mosaic Law

#4 is the the definition I use to define the word free as in freewill/free will. No strings attached; no influence in making a decision and no consequence resulting from a decision. Therefore, I conclude, man has no freewill because his decisions are not made without outside influence and are not without consequence.

 

[Reformed]

Rom 6:16 KJV - Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?
We are all servants. The question is, who is our master? Servants are not granted freewill. I consider myself a bond-servant of Jesus Christ.

Here is one Greek word that was translated as "free" in the New Testament:

Lexicon :: Strong's G1658 - eleutheros
The KJV translates Strong's G1658 in the following manner: free (18x), free woman (3x), at liberty (1x), free man (1x).
Outline of Biblical Usage [?]
1. freeborn
2. in a civil sense, one who is not a slave
3. of one who ceases to be a slave, freed, manumitted
4. free, exempt, unrestrained, not bound by an obligation
5. in an ethical sense: free from the yoke of the Mosaic Law

#4 is the the definition I use to define the word free as in freewill/free will. No strings attached; no influence in making a decision and no consequence resulting from a decision. Therefore, I conclude, man has no freewill because his decisions are not made without outside influence and are not without consequence.

Wesley, do you believe that when an individual exercises saving faith that he does so freely or under compulsion? Keep in mind that I am a Monergist. I am not advocating Synergism.

 

[37818]

I do not believe that God is omnipotent.

No, that is the true theist belief. Anything less is not God.

 

[MB]

Clicked the wrong button

 

[MB]

I do not believe that God is omnipotent. That is a Calvinist belief.

I wanted to make sure that was clear. I do not believe that God is omnipotent.

My question was more about whether you believed God was omnipotent. And you don’t believe in omnipotence at least not in the classical sense. You seem to have redefined omnipotence to mean something else. You believe that God can do whatever he pleases.

What I was trying to point out is that this is not the omnipotence of classical theism.

First of all I'm not one who changes definitions. This below is what websters dictionary says omnipoterce means;
OMNIP'OTENCE,'OTENCY, n. [L. omnipotens; omnis, all, and potens, powerful.]

If God lends or gives up his power to allow anyone else to have the power to do something without him, including having a thought, then he is no longer omnipotent. He either has to allow the free action or not. By allowing power outside of himself, he is no longer omnipotent.

I don't see it that way. I don't believe God lends His power out and He is still all powerful.He gives man an invitation to come to Him This does not lessen His power. Nothing can lessen His power. Being all powerful does not restrict God from allowing what He wishes to allow..Scripture says God is all powerful It does not say He is omnipotent. There is nothing impossible with God.

We are predestined to be like Jesus how ever not everyone is. God is not willing that anyone perrishes.
Calvinist will try to convert you to there way of thinking but you don't have to allow it.
MB

 

[MB]

Rom 6:16 KJV - Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?
We are all servants. The question is, who is our master? Servants are not granted freewill. I consider myself a bond-servant of Jesus Christ.

First you quote scripture that states clearly we are servants to whom we yeild that is freewill. Then you say " servants are not granted freewill. You really should make uo your mind because what you say and what scripture says is entirely different.

Here is one Greek word that was translated as "free" in the New Testament:

Lexicon :: Strong's G1658 - eleutheros
The KJV translates Strong's G1658 in the following manner: free (18x), free woman (3x), at liberty (1x), free man (1x).
Outline of Biblical Usage [?]
1. freeborn
2. in a civil sense, one who is not a slave
3. of one who ceases to be a slave, freed, manumitted
4. free, exempt, unrestrained, not bound by an obligation
5. in an ethical sense: free from the yoke of the Mosaic Law

#4 is the the definition I use to define the word free as in freewill/free will. No strings attached; no influence in making a decision and no consequence resulting from a decision. Therefore, I conclude, man has no freewill because his decisions are not made without outside influence and are not without consequence.

This is interesting. How do you explain the word "yeild"
MB

 

[Wesley Briggman]

Wesley, do you believe that when an individual exercises saving faith that he does so freely or under compulsion? Keep in mind that I am a Monergist. I am not advocating Synergism.

Jhn 6:44 KJV - No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.

The KJV translates Strong's G1670 in the following manner: draw (8x).
Outline of Biblical Usage [?]
to draw, drag off
metaph., to draw by inward power, lead, impel

impel
[ im-pel ]
verb (used with object), im·pelled, im·pel·ling.
to drive or urge forward; press on; incite or constrain to action.
to drive or cause to move onward; propel; impart motion to.

Since God does the drawing to the point of dragging-off or impelling, I do not believe mortal man can overcome His efforts.

Consider how Jesus dealt with Saul on the road to Damascus. Do you think Saul was remiss in not invoking his freewill

 

[Reformed]

Jhn 6:44 KJV - No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.

The KJV translates Strong's G1670 in the following manner: draw (8x).
Outline of Biblical Usage [?]
to draw, drag off
metaph., to draw by inward power, lead, impel

impel
[ im-pel ]
verb (used with object), im·pelled, im·pel·ling.
to drive or urge forward; press on; incite or constrain to action.
to drive or cause to move onward; propel; impart motion to.

Since God does the drawing to the point of dragging-off or impelling, I do not believe mortal man can overcome His efforts.

Consider how Jesus dealt with Saul on the road to Damascus. Do you think Saul was remiss in not invoking his freewill

Wesley, I asked you a simple question that can be answered with a "yes" or "no". I do not understand what that is so difficult.