Redemption

[Frogman]

If you call saying that you don't believe it refuting it, then I'd agree with you. If you call refuting my point proving my position is wrong, then I must say "refuting is in the eye of the beholder".

Tuor,

I refuted your position from the scriptural usage of "heareth" particularly specifying the difference between hearing and understanding what is heard. If you don't think this is being refuted, that is up to you. The fact remains that all men here the Gospel, but not all respond because hearing must be coupled with understanding. Because of the nature of man, he is unable to understand.

Bro. Dallas

 

[Eladar]

I don't think this thread is big enough to go into all the reasons why I disagree with your view on scripture. To tell you the truth, I doubt I could convince you because what the scritpures literally say contradict what you believe other scriptures say.

Perhaps in time I'll post threads that deal with specific scriptures. If they show up, they'll be in the "Other Religion" forum. Either that, or I'll just discuss them in PM's with you.

 

[Yelsew]

You can believe what ever you want to believe, that is the mark of human free will. But if you hold to what you've stated then you can never refute the fact that man does truly possess free will to believe as man will.

So you either believe that the Scriptures that I posted are not in the bible, or you believe they are in the bible but you interpret them as you've stated, accurate or not.

You must however agree that the words "he saw Christ Jesus" do not appear in either of the suspect passages.

By so agreeing you stab yourself with your own sword. By disagreeing you show yourself to be what you have accused Yelsew of being.

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by Frogman:
But I believe Paul saw Christ.
Bro. Dallas

So do I. The following verse says Jesus appeared to Paul. The word translated "appeared" is optanomai, which is based on the word meaning to gaze (i.e. with wide-open eyes, as at something remarkable)

Acts 9:17
Then Ananias went to the house and entered it. Placing his hands on Saul, he said, "Brother Saul, the Lord-Jesus, who appeared to you on the road as you were coming here-has sent me so that you may see again and be filled with the Holy Spirit."

 

[William C]

Originally posted by npetreley:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Frogman:
But I believe Paul saw Christ.
Bro. Dallas

So do I. The following verse says Jesus appeared to Paul. The word translated "appeared" is optanomai, which is based on the word meaning to gaze (i.e. with wide-open eyes, as at something remarkable)

Acts 9:17
Then Ananias went to the house and entered it. Placing his hands on Saul, he said, "Brother Saul, the Lord-Jesus, who appeared to you on the road as you were coming here-has sent me so that you may see again and be filled with the Holy Spirit." </font>[/QUOTE]Yet, you insist that all of us are saved in the same manner he was? I just don't see how you could believe that in light of the obviously Divine nature of this man's calling. Please explain????

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by Brother Bill:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />So do I. The following verse says Jesus appeared to Paul. The word translated "appeared" is optanomai, which is based on the word meaning to gaze (i.e. with wide-open eyes, as at something remarkable)

Acts 9:17
Then Ananias went to the house and entered it. Placing his hands on Saul, he said, "Brother Saul, the Lord-Jesus, who appeared to you on the road as you were coming here-has sent me so that you may see again and be filled with the Holy Spirit."

Yet, you insist that all of us are saved in the same manner he was? I just don't see how you could believe that in light of the obviously Divine nature of this man's calling. Please explain???? </font>[/QUOTE]Huh? When did I ever say everyone was saved on the road to Damascus with a blinding light, a vision, etc? Either that's what you're asking (in which case you should probably wait until the halucinogens wear off before posting questions like these), or you are sadly mistaken in thinking that less spectacular conversions are any less Divine. Maybe your conversion was a mundane free will illusion, but I was brought to life from death by the Spirit, just like the BIble says, and that is clearly Divine and miraculous, blinding light or no blinding light.

 

[William C]

Originally posted by npetreley:

When did I ever say everyone was saved on the road to Damascus with a blinding light, a vision, etc? Either that's what you're asking (in which case you should probably wait until the halucinogens wear off before posting questions like these), or you are sadly mistaken in thinking that less spectacular conversions are any less Divine. Maybe your conversion was a mundane free will illusion, but I was brought to life from death by the Spirit, just like the BIble says, and that is clearly Divine and miraculous, blinding light or no blinding light.

Hardy har har. You knew that I was not referring to the circumstances of the conversion. Peter's conversion was obviously not as spectacular, but it was most assuredly divine. So, what sets them apart as authorative if you and I were saved in the same divine manner?

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by Brother Bill:
So, what sets them apart as authorative if you and I were saved in the same divine manner?

What makes you think how one gets saved has anything to do with what makes one authoritative?

 

[Frogman]

Bro. Bill,

Whether th circumstances are the same or not, the election of God remains. Your argument is that because of the position of the apostles in spreading the Gospel and establishing churches is that only these men were elected and that on account of that mission. This would force upon God that election is based upon His foreknowledge of the acts of these men and thus require their election; and then ultimately removing that these same were saved not by Grace but by the knowledge of thier future works.

I cannot speak for all on this board, but for myself I cannot accept your view for this reason. This is not a personal attack, but is spoken with your view in mind; ultimately it nullifies Grace.

I am saved, I was saved at the age of 13. By the age of 19 I felt another conviction upon me to preach. I rebelled against this until I could no longer. None of this surprised God, but if he saved me only because some day I would preach the Gospel, then the Gospel of the Grace of God is not what I believed it was. Since the Gospel of the Forknowledge of God is not in scripture, I will stay with the former.

All are not elected to be Paul, Peter, James, John, nor even as great men of God as John Bunyan, C.H. Spurgeon, A.W. Pink, John Gill, and on and on, nevertheless, this is not proof that God only elected this group and that because of their position and none other is chosen because thier names are not considered great warriors of the faith.

God Bless.
Bro. Dallas

 

[Yelsew]

Silence on my post or February 07, 2003 11:31 PM.

That's revealing.

 

[Frogman]

Originally posted by Yelsew:
You can believe what ever you want to believe, that is the mark of human free will. But if you hold to what you've stated then you can never refute the fact that man does truly possess free will to believe as man will.


So you either believe that the Scriptures that I posted are not in the bible, or you believe they are in the bible but you interpret them as you've stated, accurate or not.
By so agreeing you stab yourself with your own sword. By disagreeing you show yourself to be what you have accused Yelsew of being.

I never denied man had free will; I maintain Adam fell by his will and we, as a result, inherited a will in bondage to sin, thus we cannot approach God through the exercise of our will as Adam had the opportunity. We have this hinderance, that our will is to seek and love darkness. Only after God opens our eyes and our hearing can we hear the Gospel call.

I believe you are reading a version which makes these scripture to say what you want them to say. The scripture I read says Paul did see Christ; during his experience; afterward he became blinded.

Consider it from the natural perspective Yelsew as you do all things. What happens to your eyes when they are invaded by a great bright light; then what happens after this light is removed; this would result in the blindness of Paul; Now can we imagine the glory of the light that Paul's sight was invaded with?? I can't.

The only sword I have is The Sword of the Lord, which is his Word. It is that word which is revealing of truth and none other.

God Bless.
Bro. Dallas

 

[Yelsew]

By claiming the Human will to be powerless in spiritual matters you are denying that God gave to man the ability to believe the knowledge that God enables man to have. You render man to be merely a robot! That is not the way that God made us. He made us free agents able and capable of using the tools that he instilled in humanity.

 

[romanbear]

Hi yelsew;

I agree that we have free will. What Calvinist don't realize is that God created choice between good and evil.He created both good and evil so we could have a choice.They make Him to be a respecter of persons by predestination and then claim it is others who say He is a respecter, and not them.They forget that man, ('before saved") has a conscience and knows the difference between good and evil.He got this conscience when Adam and Eve sinned.A long time before he got this conscience thing he knew that there is a God and has never lost this knowledge which is why some men give up in the search for God and create one of there own.Man found that the god's he creates on his own never ask anything except what there leader wants him to ask .Man has a knowledge of God inside of him.If man searches for God he will find him."Seek and ye shall find,knock and the door shall open". It's not God's fault if man gives up for what he thinks is better.Man even tries to convince him self there is no God Hence evolution.Man tries to hide the fact that there is a God by trying to get rid of everything that suggest it.Man Hides from God. There is no denying it just like Adam and Eve did in the garden.We cannot say we don't know there is a God.If we don't have choices to make then why are Calvinist making them?.
Is it because they don't want the responsibility?. They claim we are taken the glory from God by making such claims.There Claims are that of a man named Calvin.While here I heard some state that there is no difference between Calvinism and Christianity.I'm here to tell them there is.One is the following of man and the other is the following of Christ.Choose who you will follow.lest you trust a man you didn't even know to lead you to what end you don't know.
Romanbear

 

[Frogman]

I never denied man had free will; I maintain Adam fell by his will and we, as a result, inherited a will in bondage to sin, thus we cannot approach God through the exercise of our will as Adam had the opportunity. We have this hinderance, that our will is to seek and love darkness. Only after God opens our eyes and our hearing can we hear the Gospel call.

I maintain the above statement.

God Bless.
Bro. Dallas

 

[William C]

Dallas,

Conscience-- (in greek suneidesis) 1. God-given capacity for human beings to exercise self-critique which are based upon outward norms, values, laws and life experiences. 2. The aspect of self-awareness that produces the pain and/or pleasure we "feel" as we reflect on the norms and values we recongize and apply. It is not an outside voice. It is an inward capacity humans possess to critique themselves because the Creator provided this process as a means of moral restraint for his creation.

Does a "spiritually dead" man have a conscience? Sure they do. That can't be denied.

We can see in scripture the Jews conscience is based upon the Law; whereas the Gentiles have no law and base their conscience on their own value system. Paul rebukes the Jews by inferring that the Gentiles conscience is more consistant with God's Law than the Jews were. (Rom. 2)

Now, we also see in scripture how the terms repentance and faith are often inseperatable when it comes to speaking of the means to "how one is to be saved."

We also both agree that the Spirit must "pearse" the heart (which is similar to conscience). We disagree to the degree in which this happens, of course, but nevertheless we both agree the Holy Spirit "blows" or moves as He pleases.

A man's conscience has the ability to practice "self-critique" in light of a whatever it is being presented with, such as the gospel. Just like the values and norms of a lost man's society can guide his "self-critique mechanism" (conscience). So too, once the gospel is presented it can guide a man to critique himself in light of the gospel's message. This is the act of the man's "will" which has not been lost in the fall. How do I know? Because the lost still have a conscience.

In summary, the fall did not remove man's conscience. Man's conscience has the capasity of "self critique" in light of outside sources, such as laws, norms, values and even the presentation of the gospel message.

Calvinism's teaching on original sin doesn't leave room for the conscience that every lost man still possesses.

With Respect,
Bro. Bill

 

[npetreley]

The conscience of the Jews produced a zeal for God and the law. That really did them a lot of good, now didn't it? If, as you suggest, this zeal meant they are not spiritually dead, I wonder why it didn't make a difference?

2 For I bear them witness that they have a zeal for God, but not according to knowledge. 3 For they being ignorant of God's righteousness, and seeking to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted to the righteousness of God.

Huh? They sought to establish their own righteousness, and did not submit to the righteousness of God?

So there must be a difference between the so-called "righteousness" as perceived by the conscience and God's righteousness. The fact that there's a difference states pretty clearly that the conscience is not a righteousness that has its origin in God, or mean that one is spiritually alive.

This pretty much explains why the Jews, for all their zeal, were not saved. And if you have a concsience, a willful zeal for God, and still can't be saved, then that should tell you what awesome power free will has toward salvation! [/sarcasm]

Free will advocates also have a zeal for God, but not according to knowledge. One thing Calvinists have been saying on these boards for quite a while is that they unwittingly seek to establish their own righteousness by free will and works, which may be an indicator that they have submitted to the righteousness of God.

On the other hand, if they're elect, they'll realize the error sooner or later, so I'm not worried. But perhaps some of them should be.

 

[William C]

Originally posted by npetreley:
The conscience of the Jews produced a zeal for God and the law. That really did them a lot of good, now didn't it? If, as you suggest, this zeal meant they are not spiritually dead, I wonder why it didn't make a difference?

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />2 For I bear them witness that they have a zeal for God, but not according to knowledge. 3 For they being ignorant of God's righteousness, and seeking to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted to the righteousness of God.

Huh? They sought to establish their own righteousness, and did not submit to the righteousness of God?

So there must be a difference between the so-called "righteousness" as perceived by the conscience and God's righteousness. The fact that there's a difference states pretty clearly that the conscience is not a righteousness that has its origin in God, or mean that one is spiritually alive.
</font>[/QUOTE]You missed my point. Man's Conscience bases itself on the outside influences such as values, laws, norms etc. The "true righteousness" had not yet been revealed as Paul states in Romans, so it would not have been able to have influence upon man's conscience, would it?

So, to compare the conscience of the Jews which was obviouly influenced by the Law to those whose consciences are influenced by the new "righteousness apart from the Law" is not an accurate comparison. The Jews conscience had not been introduced to the new Covenant of Grace or the working of the Holy Spirit, both of which play a part in the influencing of a man's conscience.

With Respect,
Bro. Bill

 

[Frogman]

Calvinism's teaching on original sin doesn't leave room for the conscience that every lost man still possesses.

you are right:

"Unto the pure all things are pure: but unto them that are defiled and unbelieving is nothing pure; but even their mind and conscience is defiled." Titus 1.15

Yeah, guys, no-one denies the presence of conscience, only the ability of conscience or any other thing from dead man to produce anything, even belief.

God Bless.
Bro. Dallas

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by Frogman:
Yeah, guys, no-one denies the presence of conscience, only the ability of conscience or any other thing from dead man to produce anything, even belief.

God Bless.
Bro. Dallas

Amen. Thanks for saying it much more clearly.

 

[William C]

Originally posted by Frogman:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> Calvinism's teaching on original sin doesn't leave room for the conscience that every lost man still possesses.

you are right:

"Unto the pure all things are pure: but unto them that are defiled and unbelieving is nothing pure; but even their mind and conscience is defiled." Titus 1.15

Yeah, guys, no-one denies the presence of conscience, only the ability of conscience or any other thing from dead man to produce anything, even belief.
</font>[/QUOTE]I agree that a sinful man's conscience is defiled, but it's not dead as you imply. A defiled conscience by its very defination is a conscience that has been improperly influenced by outside sources. In the case of Titus he is dealing with the Judiazers who were improper influenced by the Law and apparently the sixth century poet and religious reformer named Epimenides. There consciene was defiled by outside influences, not necessarily an inward sin nature.

Don't misunderstand me, once sin reigns in ones body the inward hardening can most definitely sear a man's conscience from being affected by its outside influences. Today we might call these people harden criminals or incorrigable, meaning that the law and/or other outward societial influences cannot make their "self-critiquing mechanism" (conscience) work in accordance with the laws of society.

The fact that lost still have a working conscience disproves Calvinism's notion that man is dead and cannot decern "right" from "wrong" when what is truly "right" is made known to them.

It is only by the presentation of the gospel, which is the power of God unto Salvation, working with the interpretive work of the Holy Spirit that can bring conviction to the wayward conscience.

The Calvinist removes the role that a lost man's conscience (or will) plays in this process thus creating a paradox which forces God to be seen as responsible not only for man's acceptance (which is true) but also makes Him responsible for man's inability to respond (which is not true).

In other words, total depravity doesn't have to mean total inability when you consider two important differences between people before the Holy Spirit coming and after his coming.

Pre Holy Spirit = Humanity had defiled consciences, hardened by the corrupt influences of the world which was a result of the Fall.

Post Holy Spirit = Humanity had defiled consciences, hardened by the corrupt influences of the world which was a result of the Fall, but now is also influenced by the Gospel taught by divinely inspired apostles along with the interpretive working of the Holy Spirit passed along through the divinely inspired Scriptures for ages to come.

To assume that "defiled" must mean "dead" is your error. IMHO

A question for you:
If a man's conscience can be negatively influenced (defiled) by the sin of the world; why can't that very same conscience be positively influenced (broken and healed) by the power of the gospel revealed in their lives?

With Respect,
Bro. Bill