What is the Difference? Jesus is the Difference.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
What is the difference?
- Thread starter npetreley
- Start date
This thread seemed to peter out pretty quickly, didn't it? Is it that hard for Arminians to determine what makes the difference between the saved and unsaved without tautologies, never-ending retreats backward? Now that we've seen Jesus say that being rich isn't the difference, but that it's simply impossible with man, is there nowhere left to go?
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
First of all - God ENABLES all to choose because God supernaturally and sovereignly DRAWS all to Himself (John 12:32).
Secondly - we already SEE sinless perfect beings choosing BOTH right and wrong in the case of Angels. 1/3 choose wrong and 2/3 choose right.
For the Arminian the problem is the SAME once God enables CHOICE for sinners by DRAWING all.
For the Calvinist - the problem is innexplicable (at least in the case of Lucifer, the Angels and Adam before his fall).
In Christ,
Bob
Bob Ryan said:
I think sinless perfection of a created being does not necessarily exclude him from the temptation of sin and pride.
The only difference between fallen angels and fallen man is that Lucifer was able to convince a definite number of angels to rebel with him since they do not procreate. That is the number of angels in Heaven which God created are of a definite number. That's it. None will be added, we have it from the Lord's lips himself that angels do not give in marriage and do not have the ability to procreate. The fallen third of angels (no matter how many that number) is fixed to that number.
On the other hand, man procreates. When Adam fell, his posterity fell along with him. They bore the fallen nature of their federal head in him, even though they had the similitude of God (as Ray Berrian likes to point out to be the reason why man has the innate ability to choose good)thus the propensity or inclination to sin
is there, and since man is a procreating being, then there is [b[ not [/b] one man on this earth who will choose God freely of his own will because his will is completely subjugated to his fallen nature.
Your assumption that Calvinists and friends suppose that created perfect beings can never sin is wrong.
Only God is perfectly sinless, perfectly against sin, perfectly disinterested in sin because He alone in all the universes have no beginning and have always been sinless.
That is why Jesus Christ is the express image of God, perfect, sinless, disinterested in sin, completely submitted to the will of the Father, and God has predestinated all He elected unto salvation in Christ to be conformed to His image in eternity future.
I don't know about Calvinists, but, personally, to me it is not inexplicable. The operative word is 'created'.
I think sinless perfection of a created being does not necessarily exclude him from the temptation of sin and pride.
The only difference between fallen angels and fallen man is that Lucifer was able to convince a definite number of angels to rebel with him since they do not procreate. That is the number of angels in Heaven which God created are of a definite number. That's it. None will be added, we have it from the Lord's lips himself that angels do not give in marriage and do not have the ability to procreate. The fallen third of angels (no matter how many that number) is fixed to that number.
On the other hand, man procreates. When Adam fell, his posterity fell along with him. They bore the fallen nature of their federal head in him, even though they had the similitude of God (as Ray Berrian likes to point out to be the reason why man has the innate ability to choose good)thus the propensity or inclination to sin
is there, and since man is a procreating being, then there is [b[ not [/b] one man on this earth who will choose God freely of his own will because his will is completely subjugated to his fallen nature.
Your assumption that Calvinists and friends suppose that created perfect beings can never sin is wrong.
Only God is perfectly sinless, perfectly against sin, perfectly disinterested in sin because He alone in all the universes have no beginning and have always been sinless.
That is why Jesus Christ is the express image of God, perfect, sinless, disinterested in sin, completely submitted to the will of the Father, and God has predestinated all He elected unto salvation in Christ to be conformed to His image in eternity future.
I don't agree, but even assuming you're right, this does nothing to answer the question. If God draws ALL to Himself, then what is the difference between one person who chooses to respond, and another who chooses not to respond?
Again, to say that the difference is that they are able to choose differently is a tautology. We've already assumed for the sake of argument that they are able. What I want you to tell us is what is it about one person that inclines them to choose to respond to the drawing, and inclines the other person NOT to respond to the drawing?
Not to pick nits, but I would put it differently. God is righteousness. God cannot sin because He is the definition and standard against which all righteousness is measured. Any moral disagreement with God is sin because it disagrees with the very definition of what it means to be righteous. God cannot disagree with Himself, so it is impossible for God to sin.
IMO, it is the same for truth/lies. God is truth, and therefore it is impossible for God to lie. If God says it, it is true, therefore the idea of God lying is a contradiction in terms.
Thank you. No disagreement from me here.
Skandelon
<b>Moderator</b>
I was out of town, not ignoring or "running away" from you.
He is speaking about the fact that their works cannot save them. Its only through faith in God that one can be saved. In the previous chapters Jesus teaches, "With faith all things are possible." With faith we can please God. With faith we can be saved, but without faith in God salvation is impossible and without his provisions of atonement salvation would be impossible as well.
Wrong. What would be the point of pointing to the man's "stumbling block" if it didn't make any difference? Was Jesus lying when he taught that it was more difficult for a rich man to be saved? If is wealth has "nothing to do with it" then why did he say that?
Wait - YOU are the one who suggested that the illustration of the rich man demonstrated that outside influence (such as being rich) accounts for the difference. YOU are the one who said that's WHY it is harder for a rich man to be saved (through faith) than another person.
Then, when I soundly refuted your statement directly from scripture, you suddenly switch gears and say that the passage isn't about how hard it is for a rich man to have faith, it's all about how a man cannot be save by works.
THEN, in response to my statement that God makes all the difference, you return to your ORIGINAL assertion that what Jesus was talking about was that it's more difficult for a rich man to have faith.
I seem to recall someone else using these kinds of deceptive debate tactics some time ago. I think he's back under a new name. But it's just like when Esso changed to Exxon -- they got a new name, but it was still the same old gas.
Skandelon
<b>Moderator</b>
npetreley,
Let's stick to the issues and refrain from unChristlike bantering. Ok?
You have failed to understand my point. Jesus is shifting their ideas that salvation is through works, to understanding that its through faith. So, he is talking about the difficulty of a rich man to be saved because a rich man is more likely to strive in his own ability (works) because he is used to depending upon himself in life, afterall he is rich and very self reliant. This is why it is difficult for him to understand and receive the the true means to salvation which is faith and reliance upon someone else.
Thus, when Peter asks, "How can anyone be saved?" He is really asking, "If a rich man, who has all kinds of resources and abilities, can't be saved, who of us can?" Jesus replies, "Its impossible for any man with his own resources or abilities to be saved, but anything is possible if you rely upon God in faith."
You see, its more difficult for a self reliant rich man to realize his need for God, its more difficult for him not to depend upon his own works, thus it is more difficult for him to be saved.
Now, does that sound like "debate tactics?" Come on. Let's just stick to the issues.
Let's stick to the issues and refrain from unChristlike bantering. Ok?
You have failed to understand my point. Jesus is shifting their ideas that salvation is through works, to understanding that its through faith. So, he is talking about the difficulty of a rich man to be saved because a rich man is more likely to strive in his own ability (works) because he is used to depending upon himself in life, afterall he is rich and very self reliant. This is why it is difficult for him to understand and receive the the true means to salvation which is faith and reliance upon someone else.
Thus, when Peter asks, "How can anyone be saved?" He is really asking, "If a rich man, who has all kinds of resources and abilities, can't be saved, who of us can?" Jesus replies, "Its impossible for any man with his own resources or abilities to be saved, but anything is possible if you rely upon God in faith."
You see, its more difficult for a self reliant rich man to realize his need for God, its more difficult for him not to depend upon his own works, thus it is more difficult for him to be saved.
Now, does that sound like "debate tactics?" Come on. Let's just stick to the issues.
No, you conveniently switch points when it serves your argument, not when the text itself switches points.
First you claim that the whole reason Jesus described how hard it is for a rich man to be saved, he was talking about the relative difficulty with which one comes to terms with their need for God, and their need for faith. This, according to you, accounts at least in part for why one person chooses to believe and another does not choose to believe.
If you want to argue this point intelligently instead of deceptively, then assert yourself as to what this means:
23 Then Jesus said to His disciples, "Assuredly, I say to you that it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. 24 And again I say to you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."
If this refers to the "external influences" you had first claimed, then it refers to the relative difficulty with which one chooses to believe.
If this refers to works vs. faith, then your argument has no substance, since you have to retract your original statement that Jesus was referring to the relative difficulty with which one believes.
You are putting words into the mouths of the disciples. I can demonstrate why your words are incorrect.
First, the conversation begins with Jesus by humoring the rich man's attempt to gain salvation by works. I say "humoring" because notice that when the rich man says he has kept all the commandments since birth, the most appropriate answer (if Jesus did not have another goal in mind) would have been, "Yeah, right!"
16 Now behold, one came and said to Him, "Good Teacher, what good thing shall I do that I may have eternal life?"
17 So He said to him, "Why do you call Me good? No one is good but One, that is, God. But if you want to enter into life, keep the commandments."
At this point, we know Jesus is setting him up. Jesus came because nobody can keep the commandments. If people could keep the commandments, there would be no need for a redeemer.
18 He said to Him, "Which ones?"
Jesus said, ""You shall not murder,' "You shall not commit adultery,' "You shall not steal,' "You shall not bear false witness,' 19 "Honor your father and your mother,' and, "You shall love your neighbor as yourself."'
20 The young man said to Him, "All these things I have kept from my youth. What do I still lack?"
Jesus has humored him up until now in order to get to a stage where he will give him a task that will be impossible for him -- to give up his wealth. This is all to prove a point.
21 Jesus said to him, "If you want to be perfect, go, sell what you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me."
Now, EVERYONE HERE SHOULD KNOW that you cannot be perfect and be saved by selling all you have and giving it to the poor. So this part of the command of Jesus is OBVIOUSLY NOT intended to give him the instructions necessary to be saved. It is intended strictly to demonstrate his biggest weakness. (Note, however, that Jesus is not lying that this last set of instructions will work -- because he adds at the end, "come, follow Me.")
22 But when the young man heard that saying, he went away sorrowful, for he had great possessions.
Now here is where we almost agree. I agree with you that it is more difficult for a rich man to be saved than for a poor man. When God works on the hearts of men, the Spirit (generally) has to do more work to regenerate rich men than poor men.
I disagree with you that this is what makes the difference between those who get saved and those who don't. Because that's what scripture says soon...
23 Then Jesus said to His disciples, "Assuredly, I say to you that it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. 24 And again I say to you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."
25 When His disciples heard it, they were greatly astonished, saying, "Who then can be saved?"
You say...
This speculation contradicts the text. The rich man REFUSED to give away his wealth. If the rich man HAD given away his wealth, then it might be reasonable for the disciples to ask, "If it takes THAT much money to get into heaven, then who among us 'po fokes' can make it?" But the disciples could clearly see that the problem with this man was that he was unwilling to part with his wealth.
The disciples learned the lesson Jesus was teaching - that the rich man's stumbling block was his unwillingness to let go of the world and "come follow Me". This lesson was all about choosing between the world and Jesus.
25 When His disciples heard it, they were greatly astonished, saying, "Who then can be saved?"
Who then has what it takes?
26 But Jesus looked at them and said to them, "With men this is impossible,"
Again, there's your answer. NOBODY. NO MAN -- none of us can, of our own free will, let go of the world and choose Jesus.
but with God all things are possible."
But God can change the heart of anyone, including even greedy rich men.
That's all I have to say to you unless by accident (such as when you come back under yet another name and I don't recognize you for a while).
Skandelon
<b>Moderator</b>
First, let me say I agree with much of what you wrote concerning the text and I would further explain my point if indeed I believed that I was responding to someone who was reasonably seeking to discuss the issues and treating me like a fellow brother in Christ. You have some unfounded notion that I'm somehow being deceptive simply because I disagree with you and have repeatly and effectively refuted your claims.
I refuse to discuss issues with someone who refuses to treat a fellow brother in the Lord with love and respect. I know for certain what the scripture says about that.
When you remove your accusations of "deception" and the like I will be glad to discuss the issues with you further, until then however I refuse to acknowledge such posts.
God bless you and I'm sincerely praying for you.
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
#1. It doesn't matter initially - since it is obvious that not all choose life. WE simply accept it.
#2. But it is explained - as EVEN 2/3 of the Angels "choose to REMAIN sinless and perfect" while 1/3 "Choose to EMBRACE corruption and rebellion". Its something we call "free will".
Not really. IF you "assume the Calvinist premise" (instead of "proving it) - that everything is determined FOR you - then YES it is a tuataulogy to say that 1/3 of the Angels were enabled to choose differently "By being given the ability to choose differently".
But IF you accept that "free will" IS THE PRINCIPLE that allows EACH individual to CHOOSE as they will - then observing that in fact they DO choose as they will - is simply the "expected outcome".
IF we were asking "HOW does free will work" THEN saying that "they people choose differenly is that they choose differently" DOES NOT form an explanation but rather a tautaulogy.
However the question was not "HOW does free will work" so -- you can not rework the logical "expected outcome" of Free Will as a tautaulogy.
In other words - WHY did 1/3 of those perfect sinless (non-depraved) Angels "choose" differently? You are asking "how exactly does God create the mind - so that it can choose rather then simply RESPOND predictably to outside variables"?
I guess we would need to "Be God" to know that answer.
But we do know that 1/3 of them "chose" differently and that they were not "Created so depraved that they HAD to do it".
And therein - Calvinism fails from the very beginning.
In Christ,
Bob
BobRyan,
So I repeat the question, if you're willing to respond to the question itself, and not some imagined connection between men and angels. We've already assumed for the sake of argument that men are able to choose of their own free will whether or not to believe the Gospel. What I want you to tell us is what is it about one person that inclines them to choose to respond to the drawing, and inclines the other person NOT to respond to the drawing?
It is a tautology to say that one believes because he is able to choose to believe, and the other does not because he is able to choose not to believe. That is simply a repetition of the premise. What I want to know is what makes the difference: What is it about one person that makes him INCLINED to choose to believe, and the other person that makes him UNINCLINED to choose to believe?
That's not "in other words", that's "in another topic altogether".
So I repeat the question, if you're willing to respond to the question itself, and not some imagined connection between men and angels. We've already assumed for the sake of argument that men are able to choose of their own free will whether or not to believe the Gospel. What I want you to tell us is what is it about one person that inclines them to choose to respond to the drawing, and inclines the other person NOT to respond to the drawing?
It is a tautology to say that one believes because he is able to choose to believe, and the other does not because he is able to choose not to believe. That is simply a repetition of the premise. What I want to know is what makes the difference: What is it about one person that makes him INCLINED to choose to believe, and the other person that makes him UNINCLINED to choose to believe?
Ray Berrian
New Member
It really does matter that God calls all human sinners [I John 2:2] to their need of Him because this insures the Divine Justice of the living God. Without this vital factor the Lord would portray, coming from His holy Being that in fact He was/is unfair or unjust. And you and I know that this is impossible because His nature and decisions are immutible. [Hebrews 6:17-18]
Someone foolishly said, '#1. It doesn't matter initially - since it is obvious that not all choose life. WE simply accept it.'
Dr. Berrian
Someone foolishly said, '#1. It doesn't matter initially - since it is obvious that not all choose life. WE simply accept it.'
Dr. Berrian
Skandelon
<b>Moderator</b>
What makes the difference?
Its been answered. We all know you are not satisfied with the answer because we didn't say, "One guy is better than the other." The problem is one doesn't have to be better than the other to believe because whosoever can believe. The one who fails to believe is at fault and is acting in defiance to the truth.
Now, tell us what makes the difference between a Christian who obeys and one who doesn't? Is one a better Christian than the other? What about the Christian who chooses to believe Calvinism and the one who doesn't? Is one "BETTER" than the other? Did God give you better insight than us ignorant Arminians? I guess you have reason to boast, uh?
Why does God reward those who seek him? Isn't He just rewarding himself if indeed he is the only factor in the equation?
Its been answered. We all know you are not satisfied with the answer because we didn't say, "One guy is better than the other." The problem is one doesn't have to be better than the other to believe because whosoever can believe. The one who fails to believe is at fault and is acting in defiance to the truth.
Now, tell us what makes the difference between a Christian who obeys and one who doesn't? Is one a better Christian than the other? What about the Christian who chooses to believe Calvinism and the one who doesn't? Is one "BETTER" than the other? Did God give you better insight than us ignorant Arminians? I guess you have reason to boast, uh?
Why does God reward those who seek him? Isn't He just rewarding himself if indeed he is the only factor in the equation?
Ray Berrian
New Member
Skandelon,
You said, 'Why does God reward those who seek him?'
We gladly agree with the Calvinist that God woos men and women to Jesus Christ. Hebrews 11:6 is rather revealing about man and God.
A few things we learn. The Lord requires a faith/trust in Christ. Without this entity we cannot please God. Notice it is man who is required to 'come to the Lord'. God is a reality. In this passage it is not God in search of sinners, but man who 'diligently seeks the Lord. Notice the Lord did not chide sinners from searching into the reality of this saving, Divine Being.
Skandelon, I am sure that you also have more ideas on the fact that God encourages human sinners to search after, He Who is the truth.
Dr. Berrian
You said, 'Why does God reward those who seek him?'
We gladly agree with the Calvinist that God woos men and women to Jesus Christ. Hebrews 11:6 is rather revealing about man and God.
A few things we learn. The Lord requires a faith/trust in Christ. Without this entity we cannot please God. Notice it is man who is required to 'come to the Lord'. God is a reality. In this passage it is not God in search of sinners, but man who 'diligently seeks the Lord. Notice the Lord did not chide sinners from searching into the reality of this saving, Divine Being.
Skandelon, I am sure that you also have more ideas on the fact that God encourages human sinners to search after, He Who is the truth.
Dr. Berrian
Skandelon
<b>Moderator</b>
Why is this? How is anything MORE difficult for God? Where is this concept in scripture that GOD has to do more work to save some than others? Are some better than others that God has to work harder to save others? Can the ones God didn't have to work as hard on have room to boast????
God had to work hard on you to save you, but not me, I was easy to irresistability call.
OH BROTHER!!! How far are you willing to stretch the clear meaning of the text Nick????
Oh, never mind, you took your ball and went home....again.
Ray Berrian
New Member
I'll pick up where Nick walked off . . .
You said this about the sinner's ability to come to Christ. 'God had to work hard on you to save you, but not me, I was easy to irresistability call.'
Ray: Thank the Lord we both responded to His call through the Gospel.
Irresistably Call of Calvinism is not found in the Bible; it is the machination of the finite mind.
In fact, God points out in Scripture that even though He ministers to the human heart, the sinner has within his being the possibility of resisting the Divine plan.
Even without any humanistic explanation you should be able to be guided by the Holy Spirit to understand these verses. [John 5:40 & Acts 7:51]
In Isaiah 63:10 the Israelites rebelled and vexed the Holy Spirit. In Psalm 78:8, 40 & Jeremiah 19:15 the Lord finds a stubborn resistance to His call on the lives of the people.
Calvinism's "Irresistible Grace" is a misnomer to both wise, human, intelligence and to God Himself. When people resist receiving Christ as Savior, they have resisted not only His grace, but also His Divine and saving Personhood. That's why there is a Hell; eternal destruction will be the final destination for those who neglect or resist the call of His Divine Being. To think that God magically draws only His elect and then by His might forces them into humble compliance through His enforced and yet gift of faith, is a complete miscarriage of the Christian faith.
Dr. Berrian
You said this about the sinner's ability to come to Christ. 'God had to work hard on you to save you, but not me, I was easy to irresistability call.'
Ray: Thank the Lord we both responded to His call through the Gospel.
Irresistably Call of Calvinism is not found in the Bible; it is the machination of the finite mind.
In fact, God points out in Scripture that even though He ministers to the human heart, the sinner has within his being the possibility of resisting the Divine plan.
Even without any humanistic explanation you should be able to be guided by the Holy Spirit to understand these verses. [John 5:40 & Acts 7:51]
In Isaiah 63:10 the Israelites rebelled and vexed the Holy Spirit. In Psalm 78:8, 40 & Jeremiah 19:15 the Lord finds a stubborn resistance to His call on the lives of the people.
Calvinism's "Irresistible Grace" is a misnomer to both wise, human, intelligence and to God Himself. When people resist receiving Christ as Savior, they have resisted not only His grace, but also His Divine and saving Personhood. That's why there is a Hell; eternal destruction will be the final destination for those who neglect or resist the call of His Divine Being. To think that God magically draws only His elect and then by His might forces them into humble compliance through His enforced and yet gift of faith, is a complete miscarriage of the Christian faith.
Dr. Berrian