The Reconciliation of Jonathan Edwards

It says the material is first grade material that seniors in the spirit should already know to be true. and by putting you name on it, I indicated that you have overlooked a very important basic in order to prove something else. But, you are not alone! Many who post here completely forget about how the basics apply to the topic and I am included in that many. You know, the "one finger pointed at you while three are pointed back at me" routine.

 

First, you are saying that I am missing what a first grader should get. I do find that a little offensive.

Second, you ask for proof, I give it to you and you do not respond to it. You choose to tackle the side point instead of the main point. This becomes a problem when we have to support the same thing tomorrow. Let us deal with the scripture at hand and we don't have to reinvent the wheel on every thread.

 

OK, you name two. There have been including those living today in excess of 10 Billion humans and you want to say that the two that you point out are representative of all who ever lived and that they were forced by God to believe? Paul believed that Jesus was evil because he was teaching something that the priests and their scripture did not teach, so he was out to stamp out the teachings of Jesus with such ferver that Jesus decided he needed that kind of ferver on his team so he recruited him in a most unusual way. CS Lewis used poetic description to declare his own feelings toward believing that Jesus is the Son of God, the Messiah. So that narrows it down to only one whose recruitment was unique.

The fact is unless it is explicite in Scripture, you have no proof.

No, I do not deny the infallibility of Scripture, but I do question the inclucivity of scripture.

We are given enough to demonstrate the Work of God is complete, and that should be convincing enough to cause one to believe in Jesus, the messiah, and I do.

Many would say, because I believe that there is more, as in the case of Nicodemus where Jesus chided him for not knowing what he should have known.

Nicodemus did not have the writings of the Apostles, so Jesus could not hold him responsible for them. But Nicodemus seemed ignorant of basic humanity for which Jesus did hold him accountable.

One must remember that scripture was not written by animals for their edification, but by humans inspired by God for the edification of humans. So the whole of humanity must be considered in light of Scripture.

With the exception of Paul, do you have any proof relative to those who are not likewise recruited, but come to believers by hearing that which comes from the Word of God?

PS: My apology that you were offended by the literary device that Jesus used on Nicodemus, it was not intended to offend but rather to inform.

 

Yelsew, I have no arguement with someone who does not hold the scripture high. If you believe we have to mess with the interpretation of scripture because it was written with the hands of man, then there lies our main disagreement.

Sinful men can write perfect text, the same way that a sinful virgin girl can deliver a perfect child. It is a work of God.

If we cannot agree on this point, I have no further reason to continue with this.

Thanks for your time.

 

Well, that's a copout!

 

I just argue with people who do not listen to scripture. I am sorry if you see this as a copout, but I choose my battles wisely. I could argue everything you throw at me, but if you will not listen to scripture, then there is nothing I can say to speak the truth. Psalm 119:105 says that "Thy word is a lamp unto my feet and a light unto my path." Light shows what is really there. You don't seem to think it does, and if we disagree on what the standard of truth is, then we cannot proceed to discuss what truth is because we will never come to a common ground. So I will end this as far as my point. I am sorry you see this as a copout. My bible cause this Wisdom.

 

Sorry I meant to say in the first line, that I just Don't argue with people who don't listen to scripture.

 

On this bbs, the lamp that lights the path appears to be different depending on who's holding the lamp.

 

That is probably the first thing you said that I have agreed with. And that is sad my friend.

 

I see that you think you are the one holding the light.

 

The light of scriptue, not the light inside of me to decide what truth is and what isn't truth.

scripture = truth

That is all we can trust.

 

Scripture only represents truth to man when man's understanding of scripture is correct! That is where the Holy Spirit makes the difference. However, many incorrectly assume that what they believe is what the Holy Spirit has enlightened in them. Case in point is what you believe about Roman's 3:10&11 and Psalm 14:1-7. The actual scriptures reveal your understanding to be incorrect.

 

The only problem with what's behind curtain number 3 is that it adds up to 200%. So while it sounds like it should make both Arminians and Calvinists happy, it doesn't really explain anything, because it doesn't make sense.

 

Friend, rather than reading a small quote of Edwards and then stating what you think he believes, you need to read Edwards himself at length. While he believed that salvation was 100% of God and 0% of man, he did not believe that man is a puppet. Rather, he believed that man is a free moral agent. That is not the same as saying that he asserted "free will". Quite the opposite. I would suggest that you read his treatise 'On Free Will'.

P. S. (Salvation is ALL of God, therefore ALL of grace).

 

Swamji,

I didn't say the first quote, and as far as the second quote, I was being sarcastic saying it is a synergistic activity. With an arminian view, it is a cooperation of God and man. My point there was to say that in that view, even if it is mostly the work of God, and just a little me, God must be impressed that I helped Him save me. Like God can't save me without my help.

Does that make more sense?

Sturgman

 

God impressed with man? I don't think so! God acknowledges the expected, for sure. Man, believing of his own free will that Jesus is the Son of God, the Christ, is what God expects. When we don't do so, God is disappointed in us enough to cast us into the lake of Fire.

 

I is not my greatest joy to prove Calvinists wrong. I think we all are trying to understand exactly what the Word of God means.

Also, we know sinners are rebels and in rebellion against God. Just try to get sinners into the church building and you will understand. A sinner's rebellious ways neither proves Arminianism wrong or Calvinism incorrect.

We believe the Holy Spirit convicts and convinces people of their lost condition. No one is regenerated until Christ is invited into a life. He is not the Divine Intruder into human agency which He has given to us as human beings, because we are made in the 'image of God.' Although Revelation 3:20 was written to the church, it still gives us an idea as to how Jesus deals with saints and sinners. He does not knock down the door imposing His will on human beings.

 

This "Calvinist" is in full agreement with Edwards. Edwards would NEVER say that salvation is 100% of God and 100% of man. Rather, he would say that God is 100% sovereign and man is 100% responsible. He would also say that salvation is 100% of God and nothing of man.

Again, read Edwards.