John 10:15 and the Atonement

[Pastor Larry]

Yes, I accept everything that God teaches about the human. But you misused a passage and it was so badly misused that I hoped you were kidding about it. Apparently, and sadly, you weren't.

That passage you cited talks about the fact that life comes from teh Spirit of God, not from the flesh of man. That same passage say that some men cannot come to Jesus because the Father has not given it to them to come. That is prima facie case that God elects some and not others. Jesus directly addressed the point.

The Bible teaches that all men are sinners (Rom 3:10-17; 3:23) and that their minds are darkened because of their sin, hearts are hardened, and they are ignorant (Eph 4). It teaches that they are dead in trespasses and sins and are by nature the children of wrath (Eph 2). It teaches us that man's heart is deceitful and desparately wicked, and that he cannot change it (like a leopard can't change his spots; Jer). And I could go on and on. In other words, I am the one who completely accepts the Scriptural teaching about the nature of man. You have consistently rejected it.

Then you pulled this strange explanation out of your hat, and it was so off the wall I thought there was no way you could be serious.

 

[Wes Outwest]

Larry,
God did not create man as sinner!
He did not create man with a sin nature imbedded.
He did not create man to be incapable of hearing Him and responding to him.
He did not create man without spirit! In truth man must have spirit to live for the life of the flesh is the spirit! The flesh can do nothing on its own, but flesh with spirit and you have Humanity!
Flesh with spirit is a living being.
Flesh with spirit, PLUS the Holy Spirit, is a Christian, everlasting, living being! (though the flesh does die)

Sin did nothing to the created man except make the man subject to death! Sin, which is unholiness, separates us from God who is Holy!

There is nothing man can do to make himself Holy because man's spirit now possesses the "knowledge of good and evil" because Eve first, then Adam ate of the tree of the Knowledge of Good and evil. That knowledge is in the spirit of all mankind, but that does not render man incapable of hearing and responding to God or his Word.
It does make man more susceptable to sinning than to righteousness, but it did not change the form, fit or function of humanity! We remain today, essentially the same as the first Generation of man. You and your renderings from scripture do not change that.

 

[Pastor Larry]

You are right that God did not create man that way. But as the Bible tells us, Adam sinned, and because of Adam sinned was passed down to all (Rom 5; 1 Cor 15). Therefore, all those things I said above are the result of sin, not of God's creation.

You are right about flesh and spirit with respect to man's makeup. That is what we generally call dichotomy, that man has a material and immaterial part. But when Christ said that the Spirit gives life, he was referring to the Holy Spirit. Man can no more give spiritual birth to himself than he can physical birth. We are made alive (regenerated) by the Holy Spirit, not by our own spirit. John 1 makes it clear that we are not born again by human will, but by God.

We are the same essentially as Adam, if by "essentially" you mean "in essence of being." We are still in the image of God, with mind, will, emotions, personality, etc. Our "being" is of the same essence as Adam's being. But Adam, as our federal head, sinned. And because of that, we are all sinners by nature. We are born sinners and we sin because of that. We are all sinners by nature and by choice. In that, we are completely unlike what ADam was created as. That is the clear teaching of Scripture, as seen in Romans 5.

 

[ILUVLIGHT]

Hi Larry;

The word of God says that he chose us in him befeore the foundation of the world, that he chose us to salvation from the beginning. That is what I have said from day one. I came to that conclusion from reading the Scriptures. I have never read Calvin or Augustine.

I don't believe that you were not taught Calvinism from a Calvinist. You may have convinced your self of that, but you haven't convinced me. No man, with a reasonable amount of modern education could read the Bible come away with any thoughts that originally belonged to Augustine. After all we are all products of our surroundings in the way we perceive.

But think of the absurdity of your post. You claim that I display pride by claiming my doctrine is the one true doctrine. You claim the very same thing. Are you not prideful by your own standard? Of course.

No I'm not prideful. I realize that while I do believe in Christ I am still in the flesh and will no doubt sin. Therefore I do not believe I have reached any measure of perfection. I admit that I can be mistaken and have been. I'm not Christ like yet, no one is until they reach there reward. We haven't won that race yet. The race it still being run. This is why I enjoy this place so much. It enables me to check my self to see if I'm still in the faith.

1Co 10:12 Wherefore let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall

I don't have a theological degree nor would I want one when so many are misled in to the nonsense of Calvinism by seminaries.

You want me to "see the light," but you won't talk much about Scripture. You have resorted to two posts in a row now that have nothing to do with Scripture and instead have attacked me.

Larry did I say I was perfect. You set the example, but your attack against me asking me not to take offense to what you knew very well that anyone would. That is why I believe you said it to me. Don't play innocent, because you're not. No one has ever complained about me attacking them. Can anyone say the same of you?
I try my best to be humble, but your accusations I admit hurt me. I have feelings Larry something I don't think you understand anything about.
As far as scripture I have presented scripture. It is you who are so busy that you haven't read any of it. It was me that presented the scripture that started this obscene display between the both of us.
I don't come here to insult people you do that well enough your self. So now you try to make things seem as if I started this mess Larry.
This is my last post on this thread from now on don't address me unless you can be civil because if your not I'll ignore your comments.
I apologies to every one for any comment that may have been offensive. Please forgive me for letting myself to be caught up in this nonsense.
May God Bless Us all;
Mike

 

[Wes Outwest]

Jesus told Nicodemus, "For God so loved the world that He gave his only begotten son that whosoever believeth in him should have EVERLASTING LIFE!"

Amazing that you should say that the Holy Spirit is what gives life to human flesh, when Jesus said it is "Believing in the Son that gives life"! And Yes, man with his spirit can believe in the Son before receiving the Holy Spirit! When did the believers at Pentacost receive the Holy Spirit? It was after they believed! Not before! The Holy Spirit did not descend to the heads of unbelievers!

Believing in God happened all through the Old Testament, so what changed in the New testament to make it different?

 

[Ray Berrian]

WesOutwest,

When did the believers at Pentecost receive the Holy Spirit? It was after they believed! Not before! The Holy Spirit did not descend to the heads of unbelievers!

Who can argue this point?!

The Holy Spirit does not commingle with an evil heart until that one bows to the Lorship of Christ through forgiveness. Jesus knocks at the hearts door; He is not the Intruder. Jesus does not move on the sinner through stealth. He is not a covert Operator.

Believing in Christ and His promises yields the personhood of the sinner to Jesus; He does not override the will of the lost one.

 

[nwells]

Ray:

"The Holy Spirit does not commingle with an evil heart"

Actually it can co-mingle (though I guess you could say the Spirit did so because "God changed hi heart") - Anyway - back to the Word:
1 Samuel 10:9-10 (NASB95)
9 Then it happened when he turned his back to leave Samuel, God changed his heart; and all those signs came about on that day.
10 When they came to the hill there, behold, a group of prophets met him; and the Spirit of God came upon him mightily, so that he prophesied among them.

1 Samuel 11:6 (NASB95)
6 Then the Spirit of God came upon Saul mightily when he heard these words, and he became very angry.

1 Samuel 16:14 (NASB95)
14 Now the Spirit of the Lord departed from Saul, and an evil spirit from the Lord terrorized him.



Note this one is AFTER the Spirit of God had left Saul:

1 Samuel 19:23-24 (NASB95)
23 He proceeded there to Naioth in Ramah; and the Spirit of God came upon him also, so that he went along prophesying continually until he came to Naioth in Ramah.
24 He also stripped off his clothes, and he too prophesied before Samuel and lay down naked all that day and all that night. Therefore they say, “Is Saul also among the prophets?”


And then Saul is condemned:
1 Chronicles 10:13-14 (NASB95)
13 So Saul died for his trespass which he committed against the Lord, because of the word of the Lord which he did not keep; and also because he asked counsel of a medium, making inquiry of it,
14 and did not inquire of the Lord. Therefore He killed him and turned the kingdom to David the son of Jesse.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by ILUVLIGHT:
I don't believe that you were not taught Calvinism from a Calvinist.

My soteriology was certainly clarified by good teaching, but the basis of it started in 1991 with a traumatic issue in my life and culminated in 1994-95 when as a youth pastor I began dealing with Ephesians 1 and having to answer questions. I

No man, with a reasonable amount of modern education could read the Bible come away with any thoughts that originally belonged to Augustine.

That is simply incorrect both historically and theologically. These thoughts did not originate with Augustine. They go all the way back to the OT times. Second, when you read the Scripture itself, it becomes very clear that God is in charge of all things, and has elected individuals to salvation. That is plainly what the text says.

No I'm not prideful.

So you admit that you may be wrong on this issue and I may be right? Remember what your point was: You argued that I believe I hold hte only right position on this topic and therefore I am prideful. The fact that you and I still commit sin was not the issue. The issue you made was being right on this issue. So you either think your position is the only right one (something I think you think) and therefore are prideful by your own definition, or you do not think your position is the only right position and are not prideful.

BTW, I don't think those two things go hand in hand. I think you can think your position is the only right one and not be prideful.

I don't have a theological degree nor would I want one when so many are misled in to the nonsense of Calvinism by seminaries.

Perhaps the first step would be to find out what you actually disagree with. Many of your posts here have demonstrated that you are not clear on what calvinism actually teaches. You, like many others, are disagreeing with stuff we don't believe anyway.

You set the example, but your attack against me asking me not to take offense to what you knew very well that anyone would. That is why I believe you said it to me. Don't play innocent, because you're not.

I said I did not mean to be offensive and that is what I meant. I am sorry you took offense. You said something that was apparently taken wrong by me for which I apologized. What you said was heretical doctrine and needed to be confronted. It turned out that you were simply unclear. I apologized for misunderstanding that.

Mike, I think you don't understand the ramifications of false doctrine. When someone confronts you on it, it is not a personal attack. There were not personal attacks offered in this thread. I did not start anything and I was never rude to you. I am sorry that you feel the way you do about it. I hope that you will change your feelings and thoughts about that matter. I can assure you that they are misplaced. There was no ill will and nothing to be upset about.

I don't participate much here anymore for this reason. The Scripture too easily gets left behind for my taste. I have given my life to the study of the Scriptures and if we are not going to discuss that, then I don't have much to say. A prime example was the issue of Psa 14. That issue was so patently clear that it was absolutely unbelievable that you mistook it the way you did. I cannot for the life of me figure out where you came up with that at. It makes absolutely no sense. I asked you for a source that I could read where you got that. You didn't offer one. I wish you would. I would love to find out what possible arguments can be put forth in its defense.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by Wes, Outwest:
Jesus told Nicodemus, "For God so loved the world that He gave his only begotten son that whosoever believeth in him should have EVERLASTING LIFE!"

Amazing that you should say that the Holy Spirit is what gives life to human flesh, when Jesus said it is "Believing in the Son that gives life"! And Yes, man with his spirit can believe in the Son before receiving the Holy Spirit! When did the believers at Pentacost receive the Holy Spirit? It was after they believed! Not before! The Holy Spirit did not descend to the heads of unbelievers!

Believing in God happened all through the Old Testament, so what changed in the New testament to make it different?

Here again, basic misunderstandings render a conversation virtually impossible. YOu have to understand the difference between regeneration, indwelling, baptism, sealing, convicting, etc. You are conflating things that you should not be.

Since Adam, all men have been born sinners who are spiritually dead. The fact that men believed in God in teh OT is proof that the regenerating work of the Spirit took place then. What happened at Pentecost was not regeneration but baptism of the Spirit, and it was initial. After Pentecost, people are baptized at the moment of belief (1 Cor 12:13). It is how you get placed in the body of Christ. In Acts 2, you have the additional aspect of the starting of the church. All of those un Spirit baptized believers needed to get into the body, and Spirit baptism happened all at once.

As for John 3:16, you change the wording. Jesus did not say that believing in the Son gives life. He said that those who believe will have everlasting life. He does not address the cause-effect relationship, nor does he address the distinction between spiritual life and eternal life. These two are connected, but they are not the same.

The point remains that natural man will not believe in Jesus. He must be regenerated for that to happen.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by Ray Berrian:
Jesus does not move on the sinner through stealth. He is not a covert Operator.

Actually, Christ contradicted you in John 3:8. He likens the new birth to something that man does not understand, that is like the wind. You see the effects of it, but you don't see how it comes or exactly how it works.

Once again, we see a case where a point made is directly answered in Scripture. Why do people not know the Scriptures better than this?

 

[Ray Berrian]

Brother Larry,

Since the beginning of time. Rom 2 tells us that the goodness of God leads us to repentance. Acts 11 tells us that God grants repentance. Rolling your eyes because you don't know the Scriptures does not reflect well on your study habits.

I happily agree with you in your first sentence. We go one step further because the N.T. especially emphasizes His concern for all lost sinners. [II Peter 3:9] This verse then turns some of the brethren into spiritual gymnasts, or ones who distort the Word.

Your second thought is flawed because God is not selecting individuals who He is going to allow to repent, so as to insure His election. He rather is saying He had granted repentance to the nation of Israel and is not opening the flood-gates of His Being also to the Gentile people. The Greek word ‘granted’ repentance unto life’ toward the Gentiles is {edoken} meaning to allow repentance and is in the (aorist active indicative tense, suggesting that a some point in time He welcomed Gentiles with the continuing result that they can continue to be saved, just as He decreed to do with His own people.

As far as ‘cherry picking’ repentance to favored souls, this concept is a misnomer, but remains in the stockpile of Calvinistic cunning and ineptness.

 

[Pastor Larry]

God has told us clearly that elects certain individuals to salvation without respect or partiality. Then he gives them repentance and faith. The word "edoken" has nothing to do with "allowing," and I bet you know that. It is the word "didomi" and it means to give. It is the same word used in v. 17. When you study the word, you see very clearly what it means.

Ray, you can't just keep changing the meaning of words to support your doctrine.

No one has ever suggested cherry picking of favored souls. One of hte reasons why unconditional election is so vital is that God is not a player of favorites, or a respector of persons. His election is based on things wholly outside of the person. Your view makes God a respecter of those who chose him, or those "lucky" enough to be born in an area or time where the gospel is prevalent. God does not work that way. That is one reason, among others, that your concept is simply invalid and unbiblical. It makes God a respector of persons in direct violation of his word.

 

[BobRyan]

No one has ever suggested cherry picking of favored souls. One of hte reasons why unconditional election is so vital is that God is not a player of favorites, or a respector of persons. His election is based on things wholly outside of the person.

Indeed in Calvinism the person selected is selected at random. Given two people - one selected and one not - Calvinism insists that you can not point to anything ABOUT the person that is selected and say "ah hah! that is why that person was selected".

And this is the first and element that I use in the "Calvinist future scenario".

That is also the one that several Calvinists choke on because then then WANT the attribute to be "IF you happen to be the CHILD of someone that is selected THEN You TOO are selected".

And you apparently "agree" that such is not the case.

So the point remains.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Pastor Larry]

Bob, if election is based on something inside the person, then God becomes a respecter of persons, and that is a direct violation of clear scriptural teaching. I don't know of any Calvinist who choke on the family deal. The point is that God is not a respecter of persons and therefore does not choose them based on anything in them.

 

[Southern]

Pastor Larry,

Bob, if election is based on something inside the person, then God becomes a respecter of persons

Ditto, and I think there just might be a forum on that subject if anyone disagrees with you

:

http://www.baptistboard.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi/topic/35/1239.html?

In Christ

 

[Wes Outwest]

Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
Bob, if election is based on something inside the person, then God becomes a respecter of persons, and that is a direct violation of clear scriptural teaching. I don't know of any Calvinist who choke on the family deal. The point is that God is not a respecter of persons and therefore does not choose them based on anything in them.

Sorry Larry but your premise is false.

This is from another topic on this forum where southern is making the same argument that you just did

OK,
You (Southern) said this,

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />2.)The Arminian says that what makes one differ from another is their "faith". This puts the choice of God on something done in or by the person therefore God chooses based on something done by the person.

However, you probably don't understand that something "done by the person" is a work. Something "in a person" is an attribute.
The difference is that a work is never an attribute of the one doing the work, where as an attribute is that which is true of the person. FAITH is an ATTRIBUTE, not a work! Other attributes include: Grace, mercy, Love, Faithfulness, tenderness, and on the flip side, hate, malice, hurtfulness, etc. Though these are not all that are attributes they do give some idea of what where I am coming from.

then the believer has contributed to his own salvation."

By believing, one does contribute to one's own salvation.

But:
Believing does not atone for sin which Jesus did so that through believing we can have everlasting life.
Believing does not cleanse one from unrighteousness, Confession of sins and recieving forgiveness for them does cleanse one from unrighteousness ("confession is good for the soul").
Believing does not make one holy!

However, Believing does SANCTIFY one to the object of belief, meaning that what you believe in is what you are devoted to.

Believing is an "in the person" attribute, not a work that a person does. Worship is what one who believes does! See the difference?</font>[/QUOTE]

 

[Pastor Larry]

Believing is not an attribute. An attribute is a characteristic of a person. It is what makes a person what they are. For instance, we say "God is what his attributes are." Faith, on the other hand, is something you do, not something you are. To believe in Christ is no more an attribute than getting up and walking across the room is.

 

[Wes Outwest]

Once again you are not seeing the truth Larry.

Look at all the scriptures dealing with Christian conduct, you will see that the authors of those passages in giving instruction understand that their audience is believers, those possessing faith in God and especially in Jesus. What is their instruction? "Behave in accordance with your....FAITH!"

Would you agree that we humans have grace? (not charm, but rather the behavioral grace). Do we not, when face to face with others behave in accordance with our grace?

Well, why would the Apostles tell us to behave in accordance with our faith if it is not an attribute, albeit a gained attribute, of the one possessing it?

So Larry, you say "Faith, on the other hand, is something you do, not something you are." Well sir, I have not said that an attribute is something you are, but rather something that is true of the one possessing it. It is our faith that is manifested in our works! Much FAITH results in Much good works, Little faith, results in few good works. NO FAITH? No good works! We act out our faith in the same way we act out our love, and our mercy, and our grace. We are guided by what we believe, and what is within us! We always do what we believe in, that is why Paul told us "you'll know them by their fruits" Perhaps it was Jesus who told us that first. But the truth of it stands whether you want to believe it or not!

Oh, by the way, Believing is the first stage of FAITH. You do not have faith in that which you do not believe.

 

[Pastor Larry]

To behave in accordance with your faith is to act on what you say you believe. As humans, no, we do not have grace per se. Grace is something that God acts out of to save us. We do not, when face to face with others, act in accordance with our grace. We should be acting in accordance with our faith ... Live what you say you believe.

Faith is not an attribute. An attribute is a quality or characteristic. Our faith is not a characteristc of who we are. IT is something we have.

Our faith is manifest in our works to be sure, but that is not the point here.

And believing is not the first stage of faith. Believing is faith. In the NT, the noun is pistis (faith); the verb is pisteuo (believe). They are not two different things. Your statement You do not have faith in that which you do not believe is a tautalogy ... a redundancy. It is like saying You don't have a car if you don't have an automobile. Well, no kidding. Scripture does not distinguish between belief and faith for obvious reasons. They are the same thing, communicated by teh same word.

 

[Wes Outwest]

Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
To behave in accordance with your faith is to act on what you say you believe. As humans, no, we do not have grace per se. Grace is something that God acts out of to save us. We do not, when face to face with others, act in accordance with our grace. We should be acting in accordance with our faith ... Live what you say you believe.

Faith is not an attribute. An attribute is a quality or characteristic. Our faith is not a characteristc of who we are. IT is something we have.

Our faith is manifest in our works to be sure, but that is not the point here.

And believing is not the first stage of faith. Believing is faith. In the NT, the noun is pistis (faith); the verb is pisteuo (believe). They are not two different things. Your statement You do not have faith in that which you do not believe is a tautalogy ... a redundancy. It is like saying You don't have a car if you don't have an automobile. Well, no kidding. Scripture does not distinguish between belief and faith for obvious reasons. They are the same thing, communicated by teh same word.

Then why is it that people are "gracious" towards each other if they have no grace?

If we have faith, it is a characteristic (attribute) of our total makeup. And faith is a strong motivator for our behavior, therefore it is a behavioral attribute! It is something that is true of the one possessing it! That makes it an attribute.

Scriptures do say that even the demons believe in Jesus, but where is their faith? So Yes Larry the scriptures do distinguish between believing and Faith, just as I have!