The Sovereignty of God

Not that they lose the image of God, but the purpose ("worth") of man's existance-- to love and serve God forever.

I have explained how what you are saying is not a true limitation but a totally incoherency. (From modifying a position to make it more biblical, rather than reexamining the whole premise; and posing "problems" that are totally foreign to scriptural revelation to back it up) Thus, they are not the same. But if I didn't point this out, you would be concluding that your teaching on "responsibility" vs. "sovereignty" is the true mystery we can't figure out, and yet it is you who is forbidding us to do that. (We both agree that there is a "mystery" somewhere, which is inevitable when dealing with God).
And pinoy, no one here is questioning God, or trying to "share His glory". We are questioning a human interpretation about God, that is all, and if it was so infallible, such straw man suppositions about our motives would be unnecessary. And if you say that dying for all is "changing" on His part, then you're the one telling Him what He cannot do.

[ August 02, 2002, 09:15 PM: Message edited by: Eric B ]

 

EricB,

August 2 ------8:17 was a very good last paragraph.

 

Sure. But before I do, I'm going to quote from Charles Hodge's Systematic Theology so you can see that the statement I gave you is not just my own quirky view, but that of others who believe in definite atonement as well:

I believe that the purpose of Christ's death was to atone for the sins of His people. Just as the Old Testament priest represented all of the people of the nation Israel when he made a sacrifice on their behalf, and the same one sacrifice atoned for the sins of the people no matter how large the nation was, so it is with the sacrifice of Christ. Christ represented all of His church in His atoning sacrifice, but the same one sacrifice would suffice whether His church is a small group or a very large one.

And so, on the basis of this one sacrifice Christ made on behalf of His church, the gospel can be offered to all men. Anyone who becomes part of His church will have been atoned for by His sacrifice. No one needs to worry that they will believe, but there will be no atonement for them.

Well, anyone who believes will be justified on the grounds of Christ's death on behalf of His church. If a non-elect person were to believe, they would be justified. However, according to what I believe about the total depravity of men, this is a hypothetical statement without possibility.

 

Perhaps not. You made a statement that Scripture does not make in that passage. You may be right but that verse does not support you. You have twisted the words of Peter to say something that Peter did not say.

You continue with the tripe about God's autocratic election and damnation. You need to stop. That is foolishness and it has been corrected and refuted on many occasions. Move on.

Lastly, drop the "Dr" stop. We are all on a first name basis here and your "Dr" is suspect at least and seems an attempt to give yourself some credibility you can't get through your words. It is unnecessary. I have "Pastor" in front of my name only because I couldn't get "Larry." It was already taken.

 

John W. Mergel,

I am sure that we both don't believe in universalism. We are trying to tell you that faith in Jesus makes a person on of His elect. This negates the universalism that you accuse Arminian believers of hold to by way of theology. Faith in Jesus saves; the rest do not make it to Heaven.

 

This same debate is parallel to "God can not lie". Why not? Isn't he God? He, as the creator of all, cannot do something so simple as to lie?

Why not? Where is His free will?

He won't lie because He said He wouldn't therefore He cannot. This truth lies directly in His perfect and eternal nature. Since His nature is unmoving and unchanging and absolute we can assure ourselves He cannot lie. So the scriptures, once again, hold true.

Man in his sinful nature could accept Christ. He could even live a sinless life. Why doesn't he? It's not his to nature to do so. He could if he wanted but he doesn't want to therefore he can't. This truth lies directly in the nature he is in.

Cats hate water....It is in their nature to.
Dogs return to their vomit... It is in their nature to.

Man has a spiritual nature (either live or dead) and he is bound by it. His free will instinctively will only choose what is in the realm of his nature.

He could look beyond that. I have seen a cat swim. But Man will not therefore can not. He needs help. He needs a new nature.

[ August 03, 2002, 11:29 PM: Message edited by: absturzen ]

 

The "double predestination" ploy is nothing more than spin.

The only argument I see in these debates is the Calvinists say, "This is what the bible says," and the free willers say "That's not fair."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~warning pointless sarcasm below~~~~~~~~~~~~~

You can use the "That's not fair" ploy in debates of why does God let people go to hell. Why does He allow acceptance to be the key of salvation? Why doesn't He just say all the people of the world are saved now whether they believe or not? Then no one will go to hell. No one will have to suffer.

Is it "fair" that those who never heard the gospel to go to hell? Is it "fair" that people make choices based on their environments (nature/nurture) and they make the wrong choice? A single choice that will put them in a hell of torment forever. Is that "fair"?

Why even make a hell? Then you have to put something or someone in it. Why not Stop Adam a head of time instead of just giving him one warning. Is that "fair"?

And even if He didn't...Why not kill Adam outright and start over so that possibly billions of people would not suffer Hell? Is it "fair" that directly out of the womb we have a stumble stone due to the fall of Adam? Is it “fair” because of one man’s single transgression, a single mistake, an error in judgment, that so many suffer death? Is that “fair“?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~End of pointless sarcasm ~~~~~~~~~~~~~

We, even in our sins and despite the fall of Adam, could choose God. We don’t because we don’t want to therefore we can’t. We have no desire to until we are reborn and have a new nature which can see past the limits of the old nature.

We all deserve hell. We don't need Adams fall for that. We choose sin. He chose us for reason unknown to us except that He loved us. That's why we use the word "saved". He saved us from where we were willingly going.

[ August 04, 2002, 12:12 AM: Message edited by: absturzen ]

 

Absturzen,

I agree with 99% of what you said. I think you have overlooked one thing. Some non-Christian people are very moral, decent, hardworking people. Why? Because of a good upbringing plus they are created 'in the image of God,' and have the affinity to do what is normal and ethical living in American society. We agree that their lack of faith in Jesus insures their doom in Hell, nevertheless, you have 'broad-stroked' all sinners as being so bound to their sins that they cannot make a logical and sane decision, God being their Helper, to receive Christ as Savior. The Holy Spirit is always pointing to Jesus. He never comes to indwell the sinner without that one inviting Him into their life.

 

Absturzen,

I agree 99% with your Aug. 3 11:52 post. The one--- six minutes later I would rather not comment on . . .

 

To Ray and other non-Calvinists,

Do you believe in the substitutionary death of Christ - or do you believe in a different concept?

An excellent sermon by Charles Haddon Spurgeon entitled "Christ - Our Substitute" is at www.spurgeon.org/sermons/0310.htm. You can also hear it read at www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?currSection=&sermonID=82101143415

Ken
A Spurgeonite
www.spurgeon.org

[ August 03, 2002, 01:39 PM: Message edited by: Ken Hamilton ]

 

Hey Ray,

LOL. The second one was more a mental spasm rather that an intellectual argument. That's why there's a disclaimer. It's a bunch a non-sense statements just to provoke thought.

BUT I will say... Implying that all the free will side says "That's not fair." was over the top and a little mean spirited and irresponsible on my part. Unless I can prove a group thinks that way I shouldn't say it in this type of forum. I don't denounce that the "That's not fair" belief is out there (just like the hypercalvinist are out there) but to imply everyone of the other side thinks that way is wrong. Sorry. Passion over came me. Should have took a time out before I hit the add reply button.

Stevie

 

Man's worth exists only because of the image of God in man.

[/qb]But I don't accept your explanation as being valid. I think you are the one with incoherency. The fact that you make an attempt to explain something you don't like does not close the book on it. I am not sure who appointed you to decide what the mysteries and incoherencies really are. I didn't vote for you however ... .

 

See, but whatever you're saying to me can apply to you as well. You're the one (and your side) that first began trying to explain something, and then when people questioned it and there was no further biblical answer, you decided it was a mystery, but that our alternative is incoherency. But if the Bible does not expound these speculative questions and "problems" being raised, then I'm not the one deciding it is a mystery.

 

Ken,

I most strongly believe in the substitutionary death of Christ not only for some human beings but for everyone.

 

But where did God say this?? We know you are saying this but why should we take your word for it? I have brought this up many times and you have never answered. Why?? Why not just provide the verse where election is said to stem from faith?? Surely since you believe it you have a verse for it don't you??

 

Hello Ray,

Great point. Thought I would address it from my perspective.

It is my belief that regeneration always comes before conversion. To me, the gospel is not logical to a unregenerate person. So their decision to not believe in it is very sane to them. On the contrary, someone that is reborn, it would be very insane for them to reject Christ. I don't see how one could if they really believed the gospel.

There's evidence that the workings of God is not isolated solely to regeneration concerning the unsaved person. How else could the priests resist Him as told by Stephen? At this point and time; I don't think I could come up with any decent exegesis concerning the work the God does with those that are unsaved prior to the rebirth. Or what is the extent of that work outside of the outwardly call of the ministry.

Gives me one more thing to study...

Stevie

[ August 04, 2002, 12:21 AM: Message edited by: absturzen ]

 

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Ray Berrian:
The Holy Spirit is always pointing to Jesus. He never comes to indwell the sinner without that one inviting Him into their life.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Is there any Scriptural reference for anyone inviting Jesus into their life. Did you read that in the Bible or have you learned it thru.....Where?????

How about believing......

Acts 16:30-31 And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved? 31 And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.

Jesus/the Holy Spirit nevers needs an invitation to go where God directs, nor to accomplish what God sends them to do.......