John 10:15 and the Atonement

[GeneMBridges]

Originally posted by corinne:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by GeneMBridges:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Wes, Outwest:

The question in the last post should read as follows:


The only thing we die for is LACK OF FAITH in Jesus and the Godhead. Our faith in Jesus gets our name written in the book of life. So instead of facing judgment which is, being cast into the lake of fire, the second death, we pass from death into life everlasting with Jesus because we are not judged. John 3:18. Our deeds are judged, but we are not, if we believe in Jesus.

Unbelief is a sin, is it not? If it is, then did Jesus pay for that sin or not?

If you say He did not, then please support this with Scripture. I do not know of any Scripture that says Jesus died for all our sins, except for the sin of unbelief. To say that Jesus paid for all our sins except for that one means we add value to the atonement by believing, effectively we pay for that sin ourselves, so we end up adding to the atonement. That means Jesus alone did not accomplish the atonement alone.

If you say he did pay for the sin of unbelief, but we still have to believe, then are you saying that belief (or the lack thereof) is somehow morally neutral? Where is that supported in Scripture? You say it is not a sin, yet I find no Scripture that says otherwise. In fact, if it is the thing for which people are punished then how can it be morally neutral since people are punished for it? No, unbelief must be a sin, even in your view, because otherwise God is punishing people for something that is not a sin, and nowhere does Scripture say that people go to hell for things that are not sins. If unbelief is sinful, it must therefore be a sin. If people go to hell because they do not believe, then unbelief must be sinful, because people are in hell because they are being punished for their sins.


Also, that would have to mean that Jesus paid for all our sins and that those that disbelieve are being punished in hell for their sin of unbelief as well, which means God is pouring out His wrath on them for a sin for which Jesus is said to be (indicative, so this proptitiation is a done deal according to the text), twice over. That is double jeopardy. Where is the Scripture that teaches that God punishes the sins of man twice over when satisifaction has already been made? Also, if you believe that Jesus paid for all our sins Himself, this is an actual atonement. If you say unbelief is a sin and this was paid for that is true, and if you say unbelief is morally neutral that is still true. That means you end up believing in an ineffective actual atonement (a actual potential or a potentially actual atoement), which is a logical contradiction; that is an oxymoron.

You see, even you limit the atonement. We limit its scope, you limit its power.

Nobody denies that justification is by faith. However, the construction of the text in Eph. 2:8 is such that salvation is the gift of God, there is no salvation without grace, and there is no faith without faith. Thus faith is the gift of God because it comes to us by grace. A lot of people say that the antecedent to "that" in 2:8 is not faith, it grace, but that isn't quite correct. First, the antecedent is the whole preceding clause, (By grace you have been saved through faith), not just the single word, "faith," moreover, even if the view that "faith" alone is the antecedent, the word "for" links the statement itself to the sentence above, which begins in 2:4, where the subject is "God" not "man," so any way you cut it, that text is teaching that salvation is by grace alone, through faith alone and that all three...salvation as a whole, as well as grace and faith are from God Himself not from man, otherwise, you end up with man's faith being the thing about which he can boast, contradicting 2:9. </font>

Unbelief is not a sin. If a person does not believe in God, that person does not believe in everything that is attached to God, including sin. The notion of sin as we understand it is foreign to atheists. They think they do right or wrong, they don't think in terms of good or evil. They don't believe in demons or in Satan, so evil/hell does not exist for them anymore than heaven does.

Corinne </font>[/QUOTE]Corinne, let Scripture be the final arbiter of what is sin and what is not sin. Where does Scripture state that unbelief is not a sin? I have provided muliple texts showing that it is a sin. In fact, Scripture says that whatever is not of faith is sin. Arminians that say on the one hand that "whosoever, all, world," etc. are always universal, must equivocate on "whatever is not of faith is sin," in order to state that unbelief is not a sin.

I would point you very clearly that the word for unbelief in koine Greek is apistia and one of the words for disobedience is apeitheia. Both are derivative of the same word. The other Greek word for unbelief is the same exact word, apeitheia.

Now, all disobedience is sin. Wes tries to wiggle out of this by saying that if one is in unbelief or one disbelieves, one is committing the sin of disobedience, but that makes no sense whatsoever. Then what sin is one committing if one commits the sin of adultery or homosexuality or stealing? One is still committing the sin of disobedience. One is also committing the sin of idolatry (in fact, Scripture teaches very clearly that the sin of homosexuality is, in fact, idolatry at its own root, and the root of idolatry is unbelief). Unbelief is sin.

The funny thing about this is that most Arminians do, in fact, teach that unbelief is a sin for the very reasons I enumerate. The stated position of Dallas Theological Seminary is that Jesus paid for all our sins, except the sin of unbelief. This is even the postion articulated by Dr. Berrien in this very forum.

Now I ask again, did Jesus pay for our sins or not? If not, then support this exegetically, along with unbelief not being a sin.

 

[GeneMBridges]

If what you say is true then Jesus must die again for those sins that he missed the first time. Are you willing to do the crucifying?

Wes, where have I said that unbelief is not a sin for which Jesus paid? Answer: nowhere. I have stated that, in fact, that most Arminians do in fact hold to the position that unbelief IS a sin, but it is not a sin for which Jesus paid. This is the stated position of Dallas Theo. Seminary. I have said that you say that Jesus paid for all our sins, but you have not included unbelief, because you do not believe it is a sin. Thus, if unbelief is a sin, then, in your view either it is either not a sin for which Jesus paid, invalidating your own beliefs about unbelief, or it must lead to universalism.

I suppose you have exegeted the scriptures that support this declaration.

Yes, and I have even gone to the lexicon and found that the word for unbelief, which you say is NOT sin is the same as the word for disobedience, which you contend IS sin and that all words for unbelief have the same root as the one of the three for disobedience, and that the one for disobedience being different than the other does not at all support your contention, because it does not speak to parokoe being different intrinsically or in the way God treats it. Where is your exegesis? Nowhere.

The truth is that not all that can be said about 'belief' and 'unbelief' is contained in the scriptures. For example the scriptures do not say exactly what belief is! Yes, they elude to it, but do not describe the truth essence of belief. Nor does it speak of the true essence of unbelief.

Wes,

I have articulated this to you multiple times, most especially the text that reads that whatever is not of faith is sin and that the words for disobedience and unbelief in Scripture are the same exact word in koine Greek (That is FAR more than mere allusion). I believe that Scripture does say all that can be said about belief and unbelief, because I believe Scripture to be without error in all it affirms and it clearly affirms that unbelief is a sin and is God's complete revelation in all matters of faith and practice. You still have not shown an exegetical ground for your contention that unbelief is not a sin. You are floating very close to neo-orthodoxy with the first sentence of the above paragraph.

I can see that you do not understand what "paid in full" means. Atonement is payment in full for the penalty levied by God for sin. Scriptures do not say that there are sins that are not included in the definition of SIN, You are saying that! So your exegesis is flawed!

Ok, on one hand you say I have not exegeted at all, and now you say my exegesis is flawed? Again, Wes, I have stated that Jesus paid for all our sins, and, by definition, "all our sins," includes the sin of unbelief. I have NEVER said that some sins are not included. I HAVE said that there are those on your side of this debate that say that very thing, like your friend Ray Berrien. Additionally, it is the stated position of Dallas Theological Seminary and most dispensationalists. Are you not aware of this problem in their exegesis? DTS and Dr. Ray say that Jesus paid for all our sins except the sin of unbelief. You say Jesus paid for all our sins, but unbelief is not included, because it is not a sin in and of itself. I agree with you in that Jesus really paid for all our sins in full, including the sin of unbelief, because unbelief is a sin, because it is disobedient not to believe in Jesus as we are commanded, and therefore sin. Thus, either universalism is true or particular atonement is true. I reject universalism.

As has been pointed out, we are commanded to believe. If we choose to not believe, we are not guilty of the sin of unbelief, we are guilty of the sin of disobeying the command to believe.

Which you state means we are guilty of the sin of disobedience, not the sin of unbelief. By that logic, Wes, stealing is not a sin either if we steal, because that means we are disobeying the command not to steal, which is just the sin of disobedience as well. Thus stealing, coveting, and every other sin is not a sin; there is only one sin, the sin of disobedience. That's absurd of course, but that's exactly my point. To contend that the sin of unbelief with the logic you employ is not a sin is just as absurd as saying coveting is not sin, as well as unsupportable by exegesis.

IF, unbelief is sin, then every human who ever lived sins that sin. because there are many things that you have no belief in. Therefore you are guilty of Sin. For example, if I told you that John Kerry won the election, and you did not believe it, then you are guilty of the sin of unbelief.

Straw man and fallacy of limited alternatives. Some unbelief is not sin, like not believing lies or false teaching. We are commanded not to believe certain things, like persons claiming they are the Christ, when they are not the Christ. Clearly, not all unbelief is sin. However, this isn't at issue. The issue is that we are commanded to believe in Jesus and to love our brothers and to fail to do so is disobedient and therefore a sin.

If I told you that the first president of the United States was Adolf Hitler, and You chose to not believe it, You would again be guilty of unbelief! If any unbelief is sin, then ALL unbelief is sin!

See above

Compare that with a lie. If any lie is a sin, then ALL lies are sin.

See above. Christian ethicists define a lie as withholding the truth from whom it is due. A Nazi in Holland is not due the truth that Jews hide in the house. I am under no obligation to disclose that they are there, because it would result in murder. However, even if that is incorrect, Jesus still paid for that sin too, so this is irrelevant to the issue at hand, which is unbelief, not lying.

If any immorality is sin, then ALL immorality is sin.

Fallacy of false comparison. The Bible does not condemn all forms of unbelief, if it is relative to disbelieving falsehoods, for this is clearly commanded of us.

All have sinned and come short of God's glory, but thanks be to God, for Jesus has paid for our all our sins, including the sin of unbelief. You yourself say that all our sins are paid for by Jesus. Now, either belief is not a sin or it is. I say it is. I say so exegetically. Where is your exegesis?

Believe as you will. Unbelief is not sin, disobedience of God's command is sin.

What Scripture do you have that supports this contention. THUS FAR YOU HAVE PRESENTED EXACTLY ZERO, plus you above claim that the Bible somehow might not apply anyway.

NO sir, You may have shown yourself what you want to see, but you have not shown exegetically that unbelief is a sin! If any unbelief is a sin, ALL unbelief is Sin. And I've already shown you the error of that thinking!

No, you presented a straw man and used the fallacy of limited alternatives. I have shown you that not all unbelief is sin, such unbelief is that unbelief that relates to repudiation of falsehoods. However, we are dealing with disobeying the commandment to believe in Jesus. You have tried to say this is not the sin of unbelief, but the sin of disobedience (though the Greek words are the exact same words).

We must have faith (pistis) in Christ in order to be justified. Not to have faith is either "apistia" or "apeitheia. ," both translate into English as "unbelief." Disobedience is certainly apeitheia. . It all comes from the same word, in fact, it IS the SAME word, Wes. Scripture says that God pours out His wrath on the sons of apeithes. Apeithes is the adjectival form of apeitheia. Apeitheia is used for the same word as disobedience and unbelief. You yourself say that the propitiation / atonement is for all our sins. Propitiation is that which satisfies God's wrath. Thus, we have God's wrath being propitiated in full by Jesus for the sons of apeithes. Now, the last time I checked the Bible was not written in English. It was written in koine Greek. It doesn't take much to see that if you believe the propitiation was in full and for the sons of apeitha, which is the Greek word for both unbelief and disobedience, and that if the propitiation is for our sins (harmartia), it can only be that this includes apeithia, because all apeithia, which, one more time, is the same Greek word for both unbelief and disobedience, and we agree that disobedience is always a sin, the propitiation included unbelief. What is so difficult about that? In fact, the person that fails to believe in Christ, by definition disbelieves in Christ. Incidentally, the word for disbelief in Greek is Apisteo, the verb form of apistea, from which apeithia is derived. So, even disbelief, if you wish to parse words, is apeithia as well.

All I can conclude is that you realize that if it is true that unbelief is a sin, then either God is sending people to hell as a matter of double jeopardy, which you must support by Scripture but I hope you would reject as unjust, or, if general atonement is true, then universalism is true. The only real alternative is particular atonement, which you simply will not accept. However, you must still contend with the sin of unbelief NOtT being a sin, exegetically, which, again, I see you have yet to do.

I am one who says that Justification is NOT BY FAITH! Justification is by action on someone's part. Jesus took unilateral action to justify ALL mankind by atoning for the sins of ALL mankind, Once for ALL. Sanctification is through faith. It is our faith in God that sets us apart (sanctifies us) from those lacking faith in God.

Ah, so justification is by works? I guess all that business we call the Protestant Reformation was for naught. You, Wes, are so full of equivocation it isn't even funny.

We are justified by having faith, pistis, in Christ. Justification by faith is the cardinal principle of THE ENTIRE PROTESTANT REFORMATION.

COMPLETELY FALSE Gene! Knowledge and experience are not of faith! Neither of those are sin unto themselves! What you have knowledge of and experience in may be sin. but that which we call knowledge and experience are not sin.

What does Scripture say? It says that a heart of unbelief is evil. It says that whatever is not of faith is sin. It uses the same word for disobedience and unbelief in the original language. It calls all disobedience sin. Did you fail geometry? A=B, B=C, therefore A=C. In fact, in Greek, in this case A = C in the language itself. I need not exegete further on that very basis. Scripture supports my contention, it doesn't support yours. In fact, you have thus far not brought one single piece of exegesis to the table to support your contention that unbelief is not sin and / or a sin.

Now, I will ask you, yet again, to show, FROM SCRIPTURE, that unbelief is NOT sin, and if it is sin how it is not A sin.

[ November 20, 2004, 10:45 PM: Message edited by: GeneMBridges ]

 

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by BobRyan:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Southern:

1.)Jesus said that He laid His life down for who?

The WHOLE WORLD - 1John 2:2

the WORLD John 6

50 ""This is the bread which comes down out of heaven, so that one may eat of it and not die.
51 "" I am the living bread that came down out of heaven; if anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread also which I will give for the life of the world is My flesh.''

And "yes" that superset WORLD includes The "Sheep" John 10:15

Which text were you "hoping" to leave out??

Do you have an answer for this?

</font>[/QUOTE]

Southern said -
Bob if you are not going to address the questions that I asked and the specific answers that I gave, I see no reason to continue dialogue with you. I asked the question dealing with John 10 which this forum is on.

I see - so your answer to my question is "I was hoping to ignore every text except one verse in John 10"

Thanks.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by Southern:

Jesus said that some were not of His "sheep" in John 10,

That point is not under debate.

This has been repeatedly pointed out.

You seem to like to repeat that same undisputed point as if you are contributing to the topic.

That is strange.

I have repeatedly pointed out the superset and subset problem - and you seem to hope to ignore all texts that deal with the superset so you can "pretend" that only the subset exists and you can "pretend" that Christ said "I ONLY died for My sheep" (something we do NOT find in scripture).

Neither do you have a single text that says I laid down my life for JUST this group and you are NOT of the group that I laid down my life for.

Lacking that - you seem content to play games on this point.

Is that a rabbit trail you are working on??

I have directly responded to the question of WHO Christ died for - by giving chapter and verse. This is not the kind of response you are hoping for - clearly.

You keep complaining that my list is too big and includes your verse and others that you don't want to think about since you are hoping that John 10 is the only place this subject is addressed.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Southern]

Bob,

What you are saying is that:

When Jesus said He laid His life down for the sheep, the "sheep" are a minor subset of the major subset world, therefore there is no contradiction in your belief.

The following reasons are why I disagree with your evaluation of this passage:

1.)This would make Jesus statement pointless for the fact that the people listening to Him heard the following facts:
A.)Jesus laid down His life for the "sheep".
B.)They (the listeners) were not of His "sheep" and hence that is the reason that did not believe not follow Him (vs. 26). You have to be one of Christ's sheep in order to believe (vs. 26;John 6:37;Acts 13:48).

Conclusion: By looking at John 10, you would say that although Jesus told His hearers that He had a specific people in mind (the Sheep), they were still part of the focus of His death even though Jesus says that they are not of the group He lays His life down for. You assert this without any proof from the context. If this were so we would expect Jesus to make sure that His hearers would not think for a minute that He only died for His sheep and that they were part of a "larger" subset that He layed His life down for, but He does not do this. If there was such a "larger" subset, Jesus did not know anything about it and you certainly will not read about it in John 10. There is no mention of Jesus trying to cover Himself and include His hearers by telling them that He loves them and has a wonderful plan for their life. Surely He would not want them getting any wrong ideas.

He specifically pointed out who He laid His life down for and that He had other sheep which were not of that fold(vs.16)(obviously referring to Gentiles) and points out that they (the listeners) were not of either of these (the sheep).

This is how the terms "World" and "All" would have been understood by the Jewish mindset of the day (Jew/Gentile, vs. 16). So you saying that the "sheep" are a "subset" of the "World" is fallacious for this reason:

When the word "world" is used in relation to the focus of Christ's death, it means generically, Jew and Gentile or Gentiles as opposed to Jews (Rom. 11:12). His "Sheep" made up of both the Jews and the other sheep (Gentiles) that He was yet to call(vs. 16), make up the generic term "World".

2.)You base your "subset" argument on the term "World" (John 3:16;John 1:29). As I noted above, the original hearers would have understood "World"to mean not the Jews "Only" (John 11:50ff;Rom. 9:24,etc.) and that God has people from "every" group (Rev. 5:9). Jesus was referring to this idea when He said and "other" sheep I have which are not of "this" fold(vs. 16). His sheep are made up of both Jew "AND" Gentile= "World". He is the propitiation not for the Jewish sheep only, but for the world(Gentiles also, "other sheep" vs. 16). Jesus is saying in John 10 exactly what you see in John 3 when He is speaking to a "leader of Israel" that the God so loved the "World". As a Hebrew leader he would have understood this as not just the "Jews Only" (John 11:50ff).

Conclusion: So you set up a false dichotomy in your attempt to make "sheep" a subset of "world". I do not see how your point of view can fit into a scenario where Jesus tells some that they are not of the group that He lays His life down for. You say that His listeners were still part of a subset that He did lay His life down for, but Jesus knew nothing about it and certianly did not tell them anything of the sort in John 10. If they were part of the focus of His death, then you would expect Him to tell them that they were part of it, but instead you find the opposite: He says that He dies for His sheep.


Why would He make such a statement if indeed it was for more than His sheep?

In saying so you have created a false dilema that has to be brought "into" the text

and

to put a 20th Century, Western Civilization spin on the word "World" and ignore the Hebraic mindset of the day (Rom. 11:12).

 

[corinne]

Originally posted by GeneMBridges:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by corinne:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by GeneMBridges:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Wes, Outwest:

The question in the last post should read as follows:


The only thing we die for is LACK OF FAITH in Jesus and the Godhead. Our faith in Jesus gets our name written in the book of life. So instead of facing judgment which is, being cast into the lake of fire, the second death, we pass from death into life everlasting with Jesus because we are not judged. John 3:18. Our deeds are judged, but we are not, if we believe in Jesus.

Unbelief is a sin, is it not? If it is, then did Jesus pay for that sin or not?

If you say He did not, then please support this with Scripture. I do not know of any Scripture that says Jesus died for all our sins, except for the sin of unbelief. To say that Jesus paid for all our sins except for that one means we add value to the atonement by believing, effectively we pay for that sin ourselves, so we end up adding to the atonement. That means Jesus alone did not accomplish the atonement alone.

If you say he did pay for the sin of unbelief, but we still have to believe, then are you saying that belief (or the lack thereof) is somehow morally neutral? Where is that supported in Scripture? You say it is not a sin, yet I find no Scripture that says otherwise. In fact, if it is the thing for which people are punished then how can it be morally neutral since people are punished for it? No, unbelief must be a sin, even in your view, because otherwise God is punishing people for something that is not a sin, and nowhere does Scripture say that people go to hell for things that are not sins. If unbelief is sinful, it must therefore be a sin. If people go to hell because they do not believe, then unbelief must be sinful, because people are in hell because they are being punished for their sins.


Also, that would have to mean that Jesus paid for all our sins and that those that disbelieve are being punished in hell for their sin of unbelief as well, which means God is pouring out His wrath on them for a sin for which Jesus is said to be (indicative, so this proptitiation is a done deal according to the text), twice over. That is double jeopardy. Where is the Scripture that teaches that God punishes the sins of man twice over when satisifaction has already been made? Also, if you believe that Jesus paid for all our sins Himself, this is an actual atonement. If you say unbelief is a sin and this was paid for that is true, and if you say unbelief is morally neutral that is still true. That means you end up believing in an ineffective actual atonement (a actual potential or a potentially actual atoement), which is a logical contradiction; that is an oxymoron.

You see, even you limit the atonement. We limit its scope, you limit its power.

Nobody denies that justification is by faith. However, the construction of the text in Eph. 2:8 is such that salvation is the gift of God, there is no salvation without grace, and there is no faith without faith. Thus faith is the gift of God because it comes to us by grace. A lot of people say that the antecedent to "that" in 2:8 is not faith, it grace, but that isn't quite correct. First, the antecedent is the whole preceding clause, (By grace you have been saved through faith), not just the single word, "faith," moreover, even if the view that "faith" alone is the antecedent, the word "for" links the statement itself to the sentence above, which begins in 2:4, where the subject is "God" not "man," so any way you cut it, that text is teaching that salvation is by grace alone, through faith alone and that all three...salvation as a whole, as well as grace and faith are from God Himself not from man, otherwise, you end up with man's faith being the thing about which he can boast, contradicting 2:9. </font>

Unbelief is not a sin. If a person does not believe in God, that person does not believe in everything that is attached to God, including sin. The notion of sin as we understand it is foreign to atheists. They think they do right or wrong, they don't think in terms of good or evil. They don't believe in demons or in Satan, so evil/hell does not exist for them anymore than heaven does.

Corinne </font>[/QUOTE]Corinne, let Scripture be the final arbiter of what is sin and what is not sin. Where does Scripture state that unbelief is not a sin? I have provided muliple texts showing that it is a sin. In fact, Scripture says that whatever is not of faith is sin. Arminians that say on the one hand that "whosoever, all, world," etc. are always universal, must equivocate on "whatever is not of faith is sin," in order to state that unbelief is not a sin.

I would point you very clearly that the word for unbelief in koine Greek is apistia and one of the words for disobedience is apeitheia. Both are derivative of the same word. The other Greek word for unbelief is the same exact word, apeitheia.

Now, all disobedience is sin. Wes tries to wiggle out of this by saying that if one is in unbelief or one disbelieves, one is committing the sin of disobedience, but that makes no sense whatsoever. Then what sin is one committing if one commits the sin of adultery or homosexuality or stealing? One is still committing the sin of disobedience. One is also committing the sin of idolatry (in fact, Scripture teaches very clearly that the sin of homosexuality is, in fact, idolatry at its own root, and the root of idolatry is unbelief). Unbelief is sin.

The funny thing about this is that most Arminians do, in fact, teach that unbelief is a sin for the very reasons I enumerate. The stated position of Dallas Theological Seminary is that Jesus paid for all our sins, except the sin of unbelief. This is even the postion articulated by Dr. Berrien in this very forum.

Now I ask again, did Jesus pay for our sins or not? If not, then support this exegetically, along with unbelief not being a sin. </font>[/QUOTE]First, we need to define which definition of "sin" we are talking about in this thread.

If by "sin", you understand "transgression of the law of God", then something which is a sin for us Christians cannot be construed as being a sin for an unbeliever, being understood that this unbeliever does not believe in God, therefore how could he in his/her mind transgress something he does not believe in, something that has no hold over him/her?

If by "sin" you understand "an offense against religious or moral law", then you'd have to distinguish what is a religious law and what is a moral law, or what belongs to both religious and moral law.

Some unbelievers might be affected by moral laws (do not steal and do not kill are not solely religious commandments, they are also common sense moral laws - or simple laws (justice)).

A sin for an unbeliever is simply an action that is or is felt by them to be highly reprehensible from the point of view of the legal system they live in (for example waste food).

Unbelievers and believers have most times different points of view.

I think it is not possible to generalise about "sin".

However, I believe that Jesus died for all sinners who believe in him (how long they will have believed in him does not matter). The sins by these people will be erased.

Other sinners and any sin committed by them (whether we can categorize them or not) will not be touched by the Grace of Christ. The sinners will not be saved and their sins will not be erased.

Corinne

 

[Pastor Larry]

For all: Please quote only the section of the post to which you are referring. Do not quote the whole thing, or the last three posts. See Corrine's post above for an example of what not to do.

YOu will help save the page space and make it easier to read.

Thanks,
Larry

 

[Ray Berrian]

God knows the exact number of the elect during all of time. Those who believe will be elected in time for all eternity. Jesus elected them before the foundation of the world. [I Peter 1:2]

'As the Father knoweth Me, even so know I the Father; and I lay down My life for the sheep.'

The next verse-verse 16 Jesus is saying that He will be bringing to Heaven another group of sheep, for the most part the Gentile nations of believers who die in His faith. You will not find the word, 'fold' in the second word 'fold.' The Greek text uses the word, (poimne) The Greek word for fold is 'flock.

In the first word 'fold' the Greek word is {aule) meaning yard as opened to the wind, court or fold.

Jesus is saying these words, 'And other sheep I have, which are not of this yard/fold; those also I must bring, and they shall hear My voice; and there shall be one flock, and One Shepherd, of course, suggesting Jesus' kingdom people made fit for Heaven. Two covenant dispensations, [Hebrews 8:6-7] but one flock; one people of God.

Two different Greek words are offered in John 10:16 for {fold}; the first one is fold and the last one is {flock}.

 

[Pastor Larry]

God knows the exact number of the elect during all of time.

How does he know this if people are free to change their mind?

Those who believe will be elected in time for all eternity. Jesus elected them before the foundation of the world. [I Peter 1:2]

This doesn't make sense with what you have previously said. You have always maintained (without any scriptural support) that people are elected on teh basis of their belief. If they are elected from before the foundation of the world, then how are they elected on the basis of belief? They do not even yet exist, much less have the capacity for belief.

[ November 23, 2004, 08:45 AM: Message edited by: Pastor Larry ]

 

[Ray Berrian]

Pastor Larry,

I think you will agree that God being all knowing, knows before everyone is born what their response will be to He and His truth.

'God foreknows human contingencies without determining them.' You will not agree with this statement from Reverend Charles Finney.

 

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by Pastor Larry:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />God knows the exact number of the elect during all of time.

How does he know this if people are free to change their mind?

</font>[/QUOTE]Well you do make a good point about how hard it is to "BE" God. Good thing that our ability to solve God's problems for Him is not the measure of the truth of doctrine.

The elect can be chosen by God's absolute foreknowledge - but then God does not need that since already from the start "HE is not willing that ANY should perish but that ALL should come to repentance". He can simply elect to have ALL saved - and then can perfectly foreknow WHO WILL freely accept that provision.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by Southern:
Bob,

What you are saying is that:

When Jesus said He laid His life down for the sheep, the "sheep" are a minor subset of the major subset world, therefore there is no contradiction in your belief.

True enough - I have made that point repeatedly and have shown the scriptures that contrast OUR (the church) sins vs the sins of the WHOLE WORLD, and I have also shown in John 6 where Christ said he gave His life FOR THE WORLD.

And please note - John 6 happens BEFORE John 10 so at least some of His listeners ALREADY KNEW the scope context of HIS sacrifice has ALREADY been given as the WHOLE WORLD.

Southern
The following reasons are why I disagree with your evaluation of this passage:

1.)This would make Jesus statement pointless for the fact that the people listening to Him heard the following facts:
A.)Jesus laid down His life for the "sheep".

No that is wrong.

In John 6 they ALREADY heard Him say that He was giving His life for THE WORLD.

In John 10 He points out the same thing that we find in Isaiah 53 which is that the RESULT of giving His life for the world is the SAVED - the SAINTs. So it is true that He gave His life for the WORLD as HE already said to them in John 6 and then in John 10 when HE ADDS that He gives His life for HIS SHEEP - He emphasizes the SACRIFICE He is willing to make vs the theif who is NOT willing to sacrifice.

Never in John 10 does He go back on His John 6 statement and say "I give My life ONLY for My sheep" as you so "needed" Him to say.

See?

B.)They (the listeners) were not of His "sheep" and hence that is the reason that did not believe not follow Him (vs. 26). You have to be one of Christ's sheep in order to believe (vs. 26;John 6:37;Acts 13:48).

Many of those listening PRE-Cross - accepted Christianity POST Cross - EVEN of the pharisees and priests. Your logic is flawed.

Conclusion: By looking at John 10, you would say that although Jesus told His hearers that He had a specific people in mind (the Sheep), they were still part of the focus of His death even though Jesus says that they are not of the group He lays His life down for. You assert this without any proof from the context.

Wrong again. CONTEXT for John 10 is established in the chapters leading up to that point where Christ addresses the SAME subject in the SAME book as given by the SAME author. In that context - we find that Christ has ALREADY told His listeners in John 6 that He is giving His life for the world.

In John 10 the CONTEXT shows that He is now emphasizing the CONTRAST between HIS role of giving His life as shepherd - and the false shepherds that do NOT make that sacrifice. This is an entirely different emphasis. But it also explains WHY He never says "I ONLY give My life for My sheep" as you so needed Him to say in 10.

That certainly would have been a contradiction of the position already established as the CONTEXT for John 10 - in John 6.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Pastor Larry]

I think you will agree that God being all knowing, knows before everyone is born what their response will be to He and His truth.

'God foreknows human contingencies without determining them.' You will not agree with this statement from Reverend Charles Finney.

No, I don't agree with that statement by Finney. I rarely agree with anything by Finney because he was a heretic. But even at that, you miss the point. The fact that God knows all things before they happen removes any idea of free will. Since God knew in eternity past that Joe Q would reject him, Joe Q has no chance to do anything else.

And God, knowing that Joe Q would reject him still chose to bring Joe Q into existence knowing that the end of Joe Q's life would bring eternity in hell. God could have done somethign to prevent that, but he chose not to.

When you think about that scenario, you will see that you are in no different of a position than you blast us for. THe difference is that in your scheme God is not in control of it.

If God knows all things, then all man's choices are set in eternity past, and he has no free will to do anything but what God knew he would do. That is a serious problem for you.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by BobRyan:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Pastor Larry:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />God knows the exact number of the elect during all of time.

How does he know this if people are free to change their mind?

</font>[/QUOTE]Well you do make a good point about how hard it is to "BE" God. Good thing that our ability to solve God's problems for Him is not the measure of the truth of doctrine.</font>[/QUOTE]A point which you did not address. If God knows all things from eternity past, then man has no free will. Man has to do what God knows he will do. That is a problem for your position.

He can simply elect to have ALL saved - and then can perfectly foreknow WHO WILL freely accept that provision.

But if he elects all to be saved, then no all will freely accept. What is election if the person elected is not elected? That doesn't make sense, Bob. Election is a choosing. If God chooses all to be saved, then either all get saved or his choice is meaningless.

 

[ILUVLIGHT]

Hi Pastor Larry;

I rarely agree with anything by Finney because he was a heretic.

I believe many say the same about Calvin. In fact there are more than a few who would agree that he was a heretic as well. But yet you believe Calvin.

Since God knew in eternity past that Joe Q would reject him, Joe Q has no chance to do anything else.

God may or may not know eternity past, I can't pretend to know the mind of God, but man is not aware it even exist. It seems your idea would discourage anyone from going any further. Even when God has a plan in place it doesn't mean He can't or won't Change that plan. The idea God never changes His mind is nonsense. See Gen 6:6

And God, knowing that Joe Q would reject him still chose to bring Joe Q into existence knowing that the end of Joe Q's life would bring eternity in hell. God could have done something to prevent that, but he chose not to.

I wonder could you show scripture to back up this last statement?. I have never seen any thing in God's word that would indicate that God brought anyone into the world just to send him to hell.
God did do something that would prevent man from being lost. He gave man a choice to accept or reject Him.

Rom 9:22 What if God, willing to show his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:

Before Salvation we are all fitted to destruction.

I've seen this one and there is no way that a scenario created as irony to express a point is absolute truth. Actually the opposite is truth. God does not create men for the express purpose to send them to hell. God has created all men for righteousness not for destruction. This is why God gave man the choice between good and evil since the beginning. Adam and Eve chose Evil and the Jews chose to reject Christ. To say this was God's plan all along places God on our level subject to sin. Don't you agree?

THe difference is that in your scheme God is not in control of it.

What makes anyone sure that God is in control of every little thing. Not to say that he can't control everything, but does He? If He does then why would he ever change his mind as in Gen 6:6
Just seems to me that if God controls everything and being perfect in everything He does. How could a problem arise that He would have to change His mind about it?.

If God knows all things, then all man's choices are set in eternity past, and he has no free will to do anything but what God knew he would do. That is a serious problem for you.

It's only serious if you view God's knowledge from the Calvinist perspective of a plan that even God can't change. Predestination is not more powerful than God. Nothing in His creation is more powerful than God. For man to say that God doesn't allow man a free choice to accept Christ or reject Him is nonsense. Free Choice is documented through out the entire Bible And election of the rest of the world after the Jews is documented. Election is not individual any longer As it was with Jacob. Salvation is come to the Gentiles as well.

Rom 11:11 I say then, Have they stumbled that they should fall? God forbid: but rather through their fall salvation is come unto the Gentiles, for to provoke them to jealousy.
Who did Salvation come to? The Gentiles; Who are the Gentiles? Everyone else who did not believe in God before Christ. The Pagan culture of the whole world less the Jewish elect.

I believe you would be hard pressed to prove that election is individual from the new testament.

In The old testament God told the Jews to choose;
Eze 18:31 Cast away from you all your transgressions, whereby ye have transgressed; and make you a new heart and a new spirit: for why will ye die, O house of Israel?
Eze 18:32 For I have no pleasure in the death of him that dieth, saith the Lord GOD: wherefore turn yourselves, and live ye.
Eze 18:23 Have I any pleasure at all that the wicked should die? saith the Lord GOD: and not that he should return from his ways, and live?

How is it that Calvinist can deny God's own words?.

By the very fact that it is God's will that all come to Him and most do not, indicates man having a will of his own with the ability to choose.
God pleaded with the Jews to turn to Him.
Eze 33:11 Say unto them, As I live, saith the Lord GOD, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked; but that the wicked turn from his way and live: turn ye, turn ye from your evil ways; for why will ye die, O house of Israel?

This verse clearly indicates that man can chose to turn Him self from his evil ways. Can you show me where God says man has no choice? This verse also shows God's will. That the wicked be saved. Yet unless they turn from there wickedness they will die. God pleads with them to turn to Him and live.
May God Bless You;
Mike

 

[Ray Berrian]

Pastor Larry,

No, I don't agree with that statement by Finney. I rarely agree with anything by Finney because he was a heretic.

If being a heretic you mean that he had the opposite view of your Five Points, we gladly wear your negative view of our Christian theology. It is not that we like the feeling because of what you say, but we refuse to manipulate and twist the Scripture as the Roman Catholic Augustine and later John Calvin got caught up in during their life spans.

The Bible teaches that God has in His sovereign plan, made a place for the human response in salvation, making us all amenable to Almighty God because of our choice. Without this true factor God turns Jesus into an unjust and unloving God and His limited, imperfect and restricted plan of salvation becomes a Divine and unthinkable travesty.

I have read the life of Rev. Finney and now I am doing the same with the lives of Revs. Jonathan Edwards and George Whitefield. These men Rev. Finney, Edwards and Whitefield were all used by the Lord in bringing souls to Christ. To God be the glory.

Edward's grandfather before he took his pulpit at a later time was Rev. Solomon Stoddard who believed in his "Half-Way Covenant" meaning he allowed the unregenerate to receive the Holy Communion as long as they were not living a scandalous life style. Stoddard carried most of New England with him because of his great influence. He, of course, believed in the Puritan, Calvinist Covenant theology.

Receiving sinners at the Eucharist, to me, would be heretical also and he influenced the northern colonies to believe this enormous error.

Maybe we should call each others beliefs as heretical, but I feel more comfortable calling Calvinists misguided brethren in the same way I would speak of the erring aspects of the Roman Catholic Church.

What do you think? Is heresy still a good word to use?

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by ILUVLIGHT:
I believe many say the same about Calvin. In fact there are more than a few who would agree that he was a heretic as well. But yet you believe Calvin.

But the standard is not Finney or Calvin, but rather God's word. I don't believe Calvin. I believe God. It just so happens that on salvation, Calvin said the same thing God said, and that is what makes him right on these issues. God is the standard of truth. Finney did not conform; Calvin did.

God may or may not know eternity past, I can't pretend to know the mind of God, but man is not aware it even exist.

You don't have to pretend. God told us that he knows all things. That has to include eternity past. When God reveals something to you, you are not asked to pretend anything about it. You are to believe it.

It seems your idea would discourage anyone from going any further. Even when God has a plan in place it doesn't mean He can't or won't Change that plan. The idea God never changes His mind is nonsense. See Gen 6:6

God does not change his plans. You are misinterpreting those passages. God has a plan and will fulfill it. JUst read the book of Isaiah. Changes appear from man's perspective, not from God.

I wonder could you show scripture to back up this last statement?. I have never seen any thing in God's word that would indicate that God brought anyone into the world just to send him to hell.

I agree, but the end of Bob's and Ray's position is that God brought someone into the world, knowing that they would reject him. He could have stopped their exist, but he did not.

God did do something that would prevent man from being lost. He gave man a choice to accept or reject Him.

Nay, in his grace, God did far more. He regenerated man, brought faith in Christ, and saved him. Man, left to his own, will always choose to reject God. God is not at the whim of man, hoping that man will somehow choose him. God elects individuals to salvation, and then brings the faith necessary for salvation.

Rom 9:22 What if God, willing to show his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:

Before Salvation we are all fitted to destruction.

Why not quote the whole passage? That was very convenient on your part, but not quite telling the whole story.

Romans 9:22-24 22 What if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction? 23 And He did so to make known the riches of His glory upon vessels of mercy, which He prepared beforehand for glory, 24 even us, whom He also called, not from among Jews only, but also from among Gentiles.

You see, there are vessels of mercy, prepared beforehand for glory. Before what? Before their salvation ... They were elected to believe, to receive God's mercy, and God endured with patience the vessels prepared for destruction so that he might save the ones prepared for mercy. And then he called them to salvation.

God does not create men for the express purpose to send them to hell.

I agree, but there is a serious problem for the other position.

To say this was God's plan all along places God on our level subject to sin. Don't you agree?

Not all. God is perfectly holy and sinless. He has no sin.

What makes anyone sure that God is in control of every little thing.

Scripture tells us. Why do you question God's revelation. Eph 1:11 says that he is working all things after the counsel of his own will. Can you leave the "little things" out of "all things" and still have "all things"? Of course not. He controls all things.

Just seems to me that if God controls everything and being perfect in everything He does. How could a problem arise that He would have to change His mind about it?.

Which shows why your premise about God changing his mind is a wrong premise. YOu have answered your own question.

It's only serious if you view God's knowledge from the Calvinist perspective of a plan that even God can't change.

That isn't a Calvinist perspective. It is the revealed statement of God about himself.

For man to say that God doesn't allow man a free choice to accept Christ or reject Him is nonsense.

I agree. God does allow free choice. And man's unaided free choice is always to reject God. It is what he wants to do. When God gives him a new heart, he makes a different free choice.

I believe you would be hard pressed to prove that election is individual from the new testament.

Not at all. The vast majority of NT references to election are individual. He chose "us." Who? Individuals? It is impossible to have it any other way without distroting the text of Scripture.

How is it that Calvinist can deny God's own words?.

We don't. We believe those.

By the very fact that it is God's will that all come to Him and most do not, indicates man having a will of his own with the ability to choose.

So God's will is thwarted?

Job 42:2 2 "I know that You can do all things, And that no purpose of Yours can be thwarted.

Isaiah 46:10-11 10 Declaring the end from the beginning, And from ancient times things which have not been done, Saying, 'My purpose will be established, And I will accomplish all My good pleasure'; 11 Calling a bird of prey from the east, The man of My purpose from a far country. Truly I have spoken; truly I will bring it to pass. I have planned it, surely I will do it.

God's word is clear. His purposes are accomplished. If he willed to save all without exception, then all will be saved.
God pleaded with the Jews to turn to Him.

This verse clearly indicates that man can chose to turn Him self from his evil ways.

Yes, but he won't because his heart is turned against God and his mind is darkened (Eph 2, 4, Rom 3, and too many others to list).

Can you show me where God says man has no choice?

No, since God never said that. Man does have a choice. He will always choose to reject God until God opens his heart.

The issue is revelation. God has said these things. We have to believe them. We do not get to redefine things to fit our own schemes. We must believe God's word.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by Ray Berrian:
If being a heretic you mean that he had the opposite view of your Five Points,

No, that is not what it means. Finney held positions that were contrary to God's word. That is what makes him a heretic.

we refuse to manipulate and twist the Scripture

But you repeatedly do just that, even after being confronted. You, for some inexplicable reason, have decided to reject the plain teaching of Scripture and follow your own thinking on the matter.

The Bible teaches that God has in His sovereign plan, made a place for the human response in salvation, making us all amenable to Almighty God because of our choice.

Where? The Bible actually teaches that man is sinful and his mind is darkened and if God does not open his mind he will not choose Christ (Rom 3, Eph 4, 2 Cor 4, etc). Fortunately, God has not left the choice totally to man. In grace and love, he chose us in him that we might receive salvation and with it eternal glory. Man, left to his own, would never find that.

Without this true factor God turns Jesus into an unjust and unloving God and His limited, imperfect and restricted plan of salvation becomes a Divine and unthinkable travesty.

The justice argument made by you has long been refuted. You should give it up. Your idea of God's work is unjust. In your idea, God gives preference to the smart people, to those who are born in places where the gospel is prevalent, to those born into families who were saved, etc. That is partiality and God is not a God of partiality. Scripture so clearly reveals this that you should not question it.

I have read the life of Rev. Finney and now I am doing the same with the lives of Revs. Jonathan Edwards and George Whitefield. These men Rev. Finney, Edwards and Whitefield were all used by the Lord in bringing souls to Christ. To God be the glory.

Yes, they were. But Finney was a heretic.

Maybe we should call each others beliefs as heretical,

When they are, such as Finney's, then we should.

but I feel more comfortable calling Calvinists misguided brethren in the same way I would speak of the erring aspects of the Roman Catholic Church.

Your comfort level is irrelevant. We must believe what Scripture says, not what you are comfortable with. The teachings of Calvinism are, broadly speaking, exactly what Scripture declares to be so. For you to be "uncomfortable" with that reveals that you are not yet submitting your mind to all of Scripture. Second, with respect to the Catholic church, the Catholic church teaches false doctrine. There is no comparison between Calvinism and arminianism and the Catholic church.

What do you think? Is heresy still a good word to use?

Absolutely, because that is what Finney was.

 

[ILUVLIGHT]

Hi Pastor Larry;

But the standard is not Finney or Calvin, but rather God's word. I don't believe Calvin. I believe God. It just so happens that on salvation, Calvin said the same thing God said,

I agree with the first three sentences but disagree that Calvin got it right with what God said. In fact although I have read some of Calvin I have found little other than Christ being the son of God that I do agree with. The man was a good writer and no doubt a Lawyer but I'm not impressed with his knowledge of the scriptures. A scholar of theology he was not.

God is the standard of truth. Finney did not conform; Calvin did.

I know about as much about Finney as I do about Calvin. I know I disagree with Calvin and yet I cannot or would I even try to judge the heart of anyone. Christ does that. You may be surprised someday when you find those in heaven with you whom you didn't expect.

When God reveals something to you, you are not asked to pretend anything about it. You are to believe it.

I agree. Has God revealed your past before you existed?

God does not change his plans. You are misinterpreting those passages. God has a plan and will fulfill it. JUst read the book of Isaiah. Changes appear from man's perspective, not from God.

Well I read In;
Gen 6:6 And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.
You will notice that "repented" is past tense This is his mind changed already.
Then in
Gen 6:7 And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.
Not only did God change his mind but to spare the only righteous one "Noah" He decided to allow Noah and his family to live but the rest of the world his mind was still changed toward them. This is another change of God's mind.
So what's wrong with my understanding. This clearly states that God changed His mind and then after that he allowed the survival of Noah and His family but his mind was still changed towards the rest because there actions repented Him.
Proof that God changed His plans Not just once but two times. He did the same for Lot He changed His mind and saved Lot and His Family less His wife who looked back and disobeyed
A man would have to be blind not to see it IMHO.
You say I misinterpret these scriptures but fail to present the reason you would say this.

Man, left to his own, will always choose to reject God.

Would you care to show scripture to back this up. I think your wrong. I chose to accept that Faith that comes through the hearing of God's word. You see God as something that Man cannot resist. I see God pleading with man to come to Him. Why would He plead with man if it wasn't his will that man make Him as there choice.

Eze 33:11 Say unto them, As I live, saith the Lord GOD, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked; but that the wicked turn from his way and live: turn ye, turn ye from your evil ways; for why will ye die, O house of Israel?
He says "why will ye die"; As if He is crying over there decisions. We have to understand that God is Love as well as the almighty spirit. And you have to understand Love to understand his character. Read 1st Cor 13 to understand Love.

I believe your view is wrong just as much as you believe mine is. There is nothing that I know of that says we cannot resist God but in fact there is a lot that says most men do because it's there choice to.

Why not quote the whole passage? That was very convenient on your part, but not quite telling the whole story

Since you did post them,
lets take a look and see where he says who is not prepared.
Rom 9:23 And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,

You see the "and" at the beginning of the verse. This is a continuation of the if in the verse before it.
Are you going to ignore that "if"?
He's talking about the Gentiles as a whole, not as individuals as you claim as well. When you place that "s" on Gentile in this context it becomes plural and includes all Gentiles. Which is why it is important to understand that God can change His Plans about you if you refuse to change your acceptance of truth. This shows God changing His plans again. In that He decided to includude the Gentiles in His election.
A decision that is up to us as to whether or not we accept that faith in Christ. It is still not of man You'll say. Salvation has always been about God's Love for man. Other wise no one would be saved.

Scripture tells us. Why do you question God's revelation. Eph 1:11 says that he is working all things after the counsel of his own will. Can you leave the "little things" out of "all things" and still have "all things"? Of course not. He controls all things.

Yes and in the very next verse we can claim that it is us who first trusted in Christ and not the other way around. Trust requires a decision to do so especially if we are first to trust in Him.
As far as all things being under His control continually. Who could trust such a God who would use us all for His own pleasure. You see this is where your doctrine is lacking in fact You forget that God doesn't think of Him self before He thinks of us, because He is a God of Love.

1Co 13:5 Doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil;

You also fail to realize that Love is an act of the will. We are able to Love who ever we want to love. Other wise it is no longer Love.
Yet Calvinism has God doing the opposite.
Context is everything.
A Biblical Challenge is reviving to say the least. Please continue.
May God bless you;
Mike

 

[Ray Berrian]

Pastor Larry,

You said,

'No, that is not what it means. Finney held positions that were contrary
to God's word. That is what makes him a heretic.'

And what exact points with his theology do you find wrong? We need quotes and not mere generalizations, which will define what you are thinking.

'But you repeatedly do just that, even after being confronted. You, for some inexplicable reason, have decided to reject the plain teaching of Scripture and follow your own thinking on the matter.

What you need to have settled finally in your mind and heart is, just because Larry says something about the Bible does not necessarily make it truly God's thoughts expressed to us. Confronting someone does not settle the matter when you usually do not back your thoughts even with a Scripture verse.

I said previously, 'The Bible teaches that God has in His sovereign plan, made a place for the human response in salvation, making us all amenable to Almighty God because of our
choice.'

You said,

Where? The Bible actually teaches that man is sinful and his mind is
darkened and if God does not open his mind he will not choose Christ (Rom 3, Eph 4, 2 Cor 4, etc). Fortunately, God has not left the choice totally to man. In grace and love, he chose us in him that we might receive salvation and with it eternal glory. Man, left to his own, would never find that.

The freedom of the will is found in the last chapter of the Bible in verse 17f. 'And whosoever wills, let him take of the water of life freely.' It does not say, 'Whoever He wills, let he or she take of the water of life freely.'

'Yes, our minds and hearts are darkened and all sinners are children of wrath. [Ephesians 2:2-3] At this point you and I and perhaps all on the board agree. But, we believe that our wils are not so obsolete and destroyed that we do, as sinner, do not understand the fact of the plan of Jesus death, covering for sins, for our salvation. The Spirit of the Lord alerts sinners to His plan, as they hear through a witness or via preaching. Noah after the Fall [Genesis 9:6] was still created in the image of God, meaning that our minds and wills are capable of either ignoring Jesus or inviting Him into our lives. James directs this truth to our hearts also in 3:9 and John in 1:9. All sinners are tainted by Original Sin but are not divested of a mind, conscience, and ability to be moved by the Holy Spirit of God, toward personal faith in Jesus.'

The justice argument made by you has long been refuted. You should give it up. Your idea of God's work is unjust. In your idea, God gives preference to the smart people, to those who are born in places where the gospel is prevalent, to those born into
families who were saved, etc. That is partiality and God is not a God of partiality. Scripture so clearly reveals this that you should not question it.

Your dislike of the Attributes of God's love and justice, hardly makes a ripple on the theological lake of His truth. You see, once you agree with God and most theologians that God is absolutely fair, then some of us will have to adjust some theology, and we don't like that. Do not believe me, take a few volume out of a theological library on the Attribute of His Justice and Love and you might just become more enlightened.

I never brought up the idea of 'smart.' While it is true that we have an abundance of Gospel in our nation, it is our responsibility to take the Gospel to every land. [Mark 16:15] This is a mandate of Jesus directly to His people. Don't blame the Lord for our lack of motivation and involvement in sending missionaries to those who never heard of Jesus.

I am sure that the Lord will judge all of us on the basis of our knowledge and degree of enlightenment about God. Jesus will be the Judge. [John 5:22b]

I said previously: 'I have read the life of Rev. Finney and now I am doing the same with the lives of Revs. Jonathan Edwards and George Whitefield. These men Rev. Finney, Edwards and Whitefield were all used by the Lord in bringing souls to Christ. To God be the glory.'

Yes, they were. But Finney was a heretic.

This statement above is only one man's opinion. Again, Christ will be the final judge as to orthodoxy.

'When they are, such as Finney's, then we should.'

(you said heretical)

What exact points do you not like that Rev. Finney preached about?

Your comfort level is irrelevant. We must believe what Scripture says,
not what you are comfortable with. The teachings of Calvinism are,
broadly speaking, exactly what Scripture declares to be so. For you to
be "uncomfortable" with that reveals that you are not yet submitting
your mind to all of Scripture. Second, with respect to the Catholic
church, the Catholic church teaches false doctrine. There is no
comparison between Calvinism and arminianism and the Catholic
church.

By comfort level I meant that I would rather call you a faulty Christian pastor/teacher than a heretic.

I said previously, 'What do you think? Is heresy still a good word to use?'

Absolutely, because that is what Finney was.

Millions of Christians would disagree with you as to his theology being incorrect. Finney was not a 'sod buster' turned evangelist he was trained and was proficient in Latin, Greek, and Hebrew and had the equipage to ' . . . rightly divide the word of truth.'

You and I and a Roman Catholic do have things that we hold in common. Each one of us believe in Jesus, the Cross, the atonement, and His ability to save us eternally. There are more things that we share as to our faith, but much as you say and I agree, that we reject about each others particular doctrines of the Christian faith.

Brother Berrian