John 10:15 and the Atonement

[Ray Berrian]

At first I thought that Brother James wrote this quote and after checking, I believe you, Gene, wrote these words.

'I believe he repeats the Servetus myth as if it is a fact, when it has been shown it is not.'

Two definitions of the word myth are these:

1. 'An unfounded or false notion.'
2. 'A person or thing having only an imaginary or unverifiable existence.'

Gene, check your Christian historical facts and find out if Michael Servetus was a real person or not. Checking your facts and references are important even if one is not writing a book.

Brother Ray

 

[Ray Berrian]

Gene M. Bridges,

If you care to check my documentation you will find it in the volume "A History of Christianity" Harper & Row Publishers, pgs. 759 and 790, which you might have in your library.

 

[Ray Berrian]

Gene,

Sorry, I meant to include the author of "A History of Christianity" namely, Dr. Kenneth Scott Latourette.

 

[Wes Outwest]

Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
It matters because some people believe Hunt is telling the truth. If you don't bother to check the footnotes and think biblically about what he is saying, you might fall into his trap. If such writing is not exposed, it will mislead people into error.

What good does it do to "think biblically"? You claim you do, I claim I do, yet we do not agree on significant parts of it?

You could write a book refuting Hunt's book, and like Hunt's book your's would be merely the opinion of the author too. In the end it would not make one iota of difference.

The point is if we cannot agree on the bible what makes you think we would agree regarding some author's writings about the bible? You have your persuasion which I think is misguided, and I have mine which you think is misguided. Stalemate!

 

[Pastor Larry]

Thinking biblically means bringing your thoughts under the authority of Scripture. We have shown numerous places where your side does not do that. We do not agree on significant parts of it because of that reason.

The problem with Hunt's book is not his opinion, as flawed as it is and as weak as his attempt to argue his point is. The problem is that he misrepresents people and facts in his book. He makes it appear as if people are saying things that they do not say. THat is unethical and unChristian. Hunt is guilty of that. In essence, Hunt lies about what people of past generations believed.

There is no stalemate here. The Bible teaches that God elects individuals to salvation from before the foundation of the world. The only way around that truth is to change the meanings of words or to simply ignore the verses. We have demonstrated that numerous times from many passages of Scripture. We have answered every single argument that your side has put forth. The Bible teaches what unfortunately has become known as Calvinism. It used to just be called the gospel.

 

[Bro. James]

For the inspector of fruit:

Gal. 5:22-24 "But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, temperance: against such there is no law. And they that are Christ's have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts."

Selah,

Bro. James

 

[Wes Outwest]

If God "elects" individuals to salvation from before the foundation of the world, and yes Larry, I have read the scripture that says so; and if Jesus came to seek and to save that which was lost, when did those who are elected before the foundation of the world get lost? Was it before the foundation of the world? God elected them before Creation. Or was it after man was created and subsequently sinned, and thereby became lost?

If after man was created, why were only two human's created? Are they still Lost? Do not ALL of humanity have their root in Adam and Eve?

Perhaps the Mormon doctrine is correct that we are the spirit children of God and his "broodcow wives" and that Adam and Eve were necessary to produce flesh and bones bodies to be the "houses" for the God's spirit children, and among us there are those who God loved more than all others and has elected them to salvation, calling them "the world". You know, "for God so loved the world..." The Mormons believe they alone are the elect of God! And they have a plausable theory to support that doctrine. Whereas you don't!

You, and the Mormons overlook the truth that scriptures refer to the Jews as God's elect! He came unto his own (the elect) and his own, "the elect", received him NOT! So, he made it possible for "Whosoever believeth..." to have the Salvation that the elect were, and still are to recieve. Unless you are of Jewish heritage, you are not "an elect", you are a gentile believer who is a "child of God", and as Jesus says it, "you are my brothers", so not only are we children of God we are brothers of God the son.

 

[Wes Outwest]

Originally posted by Bro. James:
For the inspector of fruit:

Gal. 5:22-24 "But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, temperance: against such there is no law. And they that are Christ's have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts."

Selah,

Bro. James

So then it is the fruit of the spirit that sanctifies a person?

If those who, "...are Christ's have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts", by the way, just what does that mean? That is a confusing statement.

Sanctification is fruit? I don't find in scripture that one's spiritual fruit sanctifies them. I know many who are not Christian who have and demonstrate love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, temperance; but lack faith in God! It seems that if one lacks faith in God that one is not sanctified to God! Doesn't sanctified mean "set apart" from or to something or someone? When a man and a woman marry, do they not become sanctified to each other excluding all others?

I believe it is our faith that sanctifies us, because it is faith in God, that exempts us from judgment (John 3:18), it is our faith that sets us apart from unbelievers, thus sanctifying us to God.

 

[Pastor Larry]

If God "elects" individuals to salvation from before the foundation of the world, and yes Larry, I have read the scripture that says so; and if Jesus came to seek and to save that which was lost, when did those who are elected before the foundation of the world get lost? Was it before the foundation of the world? God elected them before Creation. Or was it after man was created and subsequently sinned, and thereby became lost?

YOu have hit upon the very issue that makes arminianism not only unbiblical, but absolutely absurd. It cannot provide an answer to this dilemma in its "free will" mindset (meaning the free will that arminians believe in). God, who created the world with full determinative knowledge elected to save individuals from their sin. They became sinners in Adam and were born into sin. The arminian has no answer because once you admit that God knows all things from eternity past, you have to admit that man really has no free will ... He is bound by God's knowledge to do what God knows he will do. He is not free to change his mind. The calvinist has no problem with that position. No arminian will touch that one. Even the normally intrepid Ray, who will try to defend almost anything, won't do more than offer a cursory post or two on that subject.

This is where the discussion of the logical order of decrees comes in.

You, and the Mormons

The Mormons and us have nothing in common.

overlook the truth that scriptures refer to the Jews as God's elect!

No we don't. We accept that, but we also realize that "elect" does not always refer to the same group of people. You ignore those Scriptures. Elect clearly refers to individuals and has to do with salvation.

He came unto his own (the elect) and his own, "the elect", received him NOT!

See how you changed Scripture to fit your own notion. That is unacceptable.

So, he made it possible for "Whosoever believeth..." to have the Salvation that the elect were, and still are to recieve.

Whosoever believes was always able to be saved, and still is. That didn't change.

Unless you are of Jewish heritage, you are not "an elect",

That simply is not true in the least. Many non Jews are addressed as elect in the NT. Just read the epistles.

 

[Skandelon]

Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
YOu have hit upon the very issue that makes arminianism not only unbiblical, but absolutely absurd. It cannot provide an answer to this dilemma in its "free will" mindset (meaning the free will that arminians believe in). God, who created the world with full determinative knowledge elected to save individuals from their sin. They became sinners in Adam and were born into sin. The arminian has no answer because once you admit that God knows all things from eternity past, you have to admit that man really has no free will ... He is bound by God's knowledge to do what God knows he will do. He is not free to change his mind. The calvinist has no problem with that position. No arminian will touch that one. Even the normally intrepid Ray, who will try to defend almost anything, won't do more than offer a cursory post or two on that subject.

I'm your huckleberry.

I don't know why you presume that God's knowledge of something lessons men's freedom or liberty. Did God know Adam's choice to fall? Was that not a free choice? Knowing something will happen and determining that it will happen are two completely different concepts and pretending that they must be one in the same is at the core of your mistake.

We all admit that there is a mystery to the eternal nature of God, especially in regard to our time contrained responses to His revelations, but there is nothing in scripture to support the idea that God's foreknowledge of men's choices somehow lessons the liberty of that choice.

 

[Pastor Larry]

The problem Skan is not that God's plan lessons man's freedom or liberty in our view. The problem is that your view is inconsistent with it. The biblical view of freedom takes into account God's knowledge. Your view does not.

IN the biblical view, freedom/liberty is the ability to act in accordance with one's nature. Since man is born with a sin nature as a old man, he can make free choices to sin. He cannot make free choice to repent and turn to God.

In your view, you believe freedom necessitates the ability to do anything and that is the problem. God's knowledge, whether determinative or not, is final and infallible. If God knew that "Joe" (whoever Joe is) was not going to believe in him, then Joe has no free will to believe in God. He cannot change his mind. God's knowledge has rendered it impossible for Joe to do anything different. And that is a problem for you. We understand biblically that Joe doesn't want to do anythign different. He has perfect freedom and liberty to do whatever he wants to do.

Knowledge and determination, with respect to eternal knowledge of God are virtually indistinguishable theologically. His knowledge makes it certain. Your conception of trying to distinguish makes God very neutered ... all knowing but powerless to do anything about it. He created Joe knowing that Joe would reject him and thus he created Joe to send him to hell. You rebel against that scenario in the Calvinist system, but accept it in your own. That is problemmatic.

The open theists have recognized the problem with your position and changed to accomodate it. You have not yet done that.

So the problem of God's perfect knowlege is insurmountable for the non-Calvinist view.

 

[Skandelon]

The problem Skan is not that God's plan lessons man's freedom or liberty in our view. The problem is that your view is inconsistent with it. The biblical view of freedom takes into account God's knowledge. Your view does not...

In your view, you believe freedom necessitates the ability to do anything and that is the problem.

Not "anything." Only that which God requires of us and for which we are held responsible (meaning literally response able).

If I say to my child, "Come here," would you even consider that I would say such a thing if she were only 1 week old? Of course not. The command certainly implies the ability. Now, I also recongnize that God tells us to be perfect as He is perfect, which you might argue is impossible. But there is a huge difference, because it is possible through faith in Christ who is perfect on our behalf. The law was never given as a means to salvation, it was given as a tutor to point us to Christ and his words, by which we will be judged.

God's knowledge, whether determinative or not, is final and infallible. If God knew that "Joe" (whoever Joe is) was not going to believe in him, then Joe has no free will to believe in God. He cannot change his mind. God's knowledge has rendered it impossible for Joe to do anything different. And that is a problem for you.

This is merely a restatement of your previous presumption which only continues to beg the question. Did God know Adam's choice or not?

If so, does this somehow render it impossible for Adam to do anything differently? Was Adam's choice not a free one?

 

[Ray Berrian]

We were taught there are three phases in our sanctification as the people of God.

1. When we get saved we are also sanctified in Christ Jesus, meaning we are set apart for a holy purpose and new life in our Lord. [I Corinthians 1:2] If I correctly remember the Greek says 'sanctified in Christ Jesus, {called saints . . . '}

2. We are sanctified in another sense when the regenerated person fully consecrates Himself to the Lord and continues to walk in His Light. The Greek tense for 'sanctify' is the word, (hagiasai) which is in the aorist active tense, suggesting a definite time with continuous action. [I Thess. 5:23] 'And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly . . . ' All of the life of the Christian is a life of growth in grace or maturity in the things of God.

3. The third and final action of the Holy Spirit is when His finished works [Ephesians 2:10] are done in our lives when we see the Lord [I Thess. 5:23b] at death or when He comes for His church., ' . . . in the Presence of the Lord.' [I Thess. 4:16-17] Only the 'dead in Christ' [4:16d] will rise from their graves, the saved, the people of God, which includes those who are alive and saved at His coming. Our sanctification is a life long experience of learning and loving Him more each day.

 

[ILUVLIGHT]

Hi Pastor Larry;

It matters because some people believe Hunt is telling the truth. If you don't bother to check the footnotes and think biblically about what he is saying, you might fall into his trap. If such writing is not exposed, it will mislead people into error.

I think your missing the point of what I said.
I'm sorry, I'm not the best communicator. You want to warn people about Mr. Hunt's book, because you, your self, disagree with Him. Creating controversy over his book is not the way to let it die. The more Slander brought against the man and objections from well know Calvinist will only make his book more read.
So all your doing is helping him sell more of them.
I hope you better understand what I trying to say this time. Slander IMHO is not any thing but gossip. and Gossip travels like a prairie fire. You can't run fast enough to get away from it because it creates it's own driving wind. The bigger the fire grows the more heat from the fire and the faster the wind blows. The only nice thing about it is that when it's all over and done the one who gets burned is the one who started it in the first place. We all reap what we sow!
May God Bless You
Mike

 

[Ray Berrian]

God is omniscient and there is nothing that the Triune Godhead does not know. This is true as to a knowledge of who all His elect will be for eternity.

We believe that God gives all of His creatures choice as Adam and Eve experienced in the Garden. We withdraw from any idea that the Lord chooses the non-elect for the eternal regions of the damned.

It is within His sovereign plan to offer the Gospel to all sinners, while making each of them responsible for their choice. This view alone maintains the Divine love and justice of Almighty God, rather than making Him into a tyrannical Divine despot who allegedly brings fire and brimstone to those who never had the option of choice, to escape the regions of eternal destruction.

What satisfaction could Almighty God experience that would make Him delight in His own cruelty and brutality toward other sinners who He merely did not wish to select?

Check out the meaning of 'any' and 'all' in II Peter 3:9. This verse will point to our Lord's true concern for the lost.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by Skandelon:
Not "anything." Only that which God requires of us and for which we are held responsible (meaning literally response able).

And this is exactly the problem. You believe something contrary to what the Bible teaches. The Bible teaches that man, becuase of his own willfull sin, is not able to come to God, not able to please him. We have shown you these passages many times and you just keep changing them to mean something else.

This is merely a restatement of your previous presumption which only continues to beg the question. Did God know Adam's choice or not?

I thought I made this clear. Yes, God knew Adam's choice. How could he have ordained the sacrifice for sin from before the foundation of the world if he did not know sin would happen? How could he have elected sinners if he did not know sin would happen?

If so, does this somehow render it impossible for Adam to do anything differently?

Yes. Adam could not have done anything differently, or God's knowledge would have been imperfect.

Was Adam's choice not a free one?

Yes, it was. Adam did what he wanted to do. He was acting in accordance with his own unconfirmed nature and desires.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by ILUVLIGHT:
You want to warn people about Mr. Hunt's book, because you, your self, disagree with Him.

Not at all. I warn people about his book because it is bad. There are plenty of books I disagree with that I don't warn people about. Hunt's book is filled with mistakes and misrepresentations.

The more Slander brought against the man and objections from well know Calvinist will only make his book more read.

I have not presented any slander, nor did Doran in his review. Perhaps others have, but the ones I have seen are based on fact. We want people to know that they cannot trust Hunt because of his easily verifiable lies and misrepresentations about people and what they said.

Slander IMHO is not any thing but gossip. and Gossip travels like a prairie fire.

I agree. Hunt participated in slander in his book by misrepresenting people's beliefs. He sinned in doing that and should offer a public repentance and retraction, not for his position on arminianism necessarily (although he certainly needs to repent of that too). He should publicly confesss his sin of misrepresentation. It is wrong and unethical. When you make people out to believe something they didn't believe, and when you were told about it before you did it, you cannot claim ignorance. It was slander against men like Spurgeon, Robertson, and others.

I bring up the book again here because Ray and others cite it as if it is legitimate research. It is not. But it is written in such a way that if someone doesn't have access to basic church history, theology, and the resources he cites, they may not know it. In other words, Hunt sounds good to those who do not know better. I want to protect them, not from arminianism, but from a guy who didn't tell the truth. If you are going to disagree with calvinism, at least disagree with what we believe, not with the stuff that Hunt made up.

I understood your point just fine. My comments on HUnt's book are not driven by your objections, but spring from different reasons.

 

[Ray Berrian]

Pastor Larry,

Was Mr. Hunt correct about a Christian historical figure called Michael Servetus the heretic, or do you stand with your Calvinistic board contributor who calls him a myth in Hunt's mind? Did Mr. Hunt tell the truth about Servetus believing in Unitarianism and rejected infant baptism?
Since he was correct about this fact he should be checked about all of his other quotes from other volumes.

Have you ever read his book from cover to cover?

Mr. Hunt is hated by Calvinist people because he contronts them head on. He is discounted by some because he deals with all the passages that have confused some believers.

My prays attend your ministry.

Dr. Berrian

 

[Pastor Larry]

Ray,

If someone denies the historicity of Servetus they are wrong. If someone brings him into this forum, they are wrong. Servetus is a discussion about history. This is a discussion about theology. You have been warned about that before.

Secondly, every single quote of Hunt needs to be checked. If you read the review, you can see numerous places where Hunt misquoted, or selectively quoted, in order to make a particular presentation that was contrary to the truth. That was unethical.

No, I have no read it from cover to cover. I have read parts of it, enough to make me sick.

Hunt is not hated by Calvinists. He is exposed by Calvinists because he did a bad job. Hunt's 'dealing with passages' is quite often laughable. If all Arminians were as careless as Hunt, there would be none left. Hunt needs to be rejected because this a bad book. It is not worthy of use or recommendation. As Doran said in his review, he initially just put it aside because it was so poor. Then he found out that some people were actually taking it seriously. That is why he wrote. There are some well meaning, but spiritually misguided people who actually believe what Hunt said and for the sake of their spiritual life and theological discipline, they need to be exposed to the truth.

As I have often said, disagree with us if you must, but at least disagree with us legitimately. Don't disagree with us on the basis of straw men, such as Hunt often sets up.

 

[Skandelon]

Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
And this is exactly the problem. You believe something contrary to what the Bible teaches. The Bible teaches that man, becuase of his own willfull sin, is not able to come to God, not able to please him.

Yes, we have been through this many times and for those reading this for the first time allow me to challenge you to find one passage that teaches that men are unable to respond in faith to the powerful message of the gospel. Such a passage does not exist. The passage Larry uses in Romans 8 says that men living in sin cannot please God, but that says nothing about their ability to respond in faith once confronted by the powerful gospel.

Larry, in fact, I would dare say by your application of this text that you must conclude that even "the elect" cannot please God by responding in faith either, because the "elect" are living in sin and by your application of this verse they CANNOT please God. But, you protest saying, No, God causes them to believe, so that they can believe and thus please God. (I believe the same thing except I don't believe the cause is irresistable as do you). It doesn't matter how they come to believe, whether by choice or by irresistable means, they cannot, by ANY means, please God according to your application of this verse. The means by which one come to believe and thus please God is not even discussed in this particular passage and therefore it is pure presumption to assume that the means by which we can please God are irresistable instead of by volition once confronted by the gospel. You have nothing but pure presumption.

I thought I made this clear. Yes, God knew Adam's choice. How could he have ordained the sacrifice for sin from before the foundation of the world if he did not know sin would happen? How could he have elected sinners if he did not know sin would happen?

I agree. So we both believe God knew Adam's choice before he made it.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Was Adam's choice not a free one?

Yes, it was. </font>[/QUOTE]So, we both agree that God knew Adam's choice, yet we both agree that the choice was free.

So, what is the problem? Why do you insist that because I believe men today have a free choice that I cannot be consistant in believing God knows men's choices? We believe the exact same thing about Adam's choice and man's knowledge of that choice and we come to the same conclusion that it was free, yet somehow I'm inconsistant? I don't get your point.