What would you believe...

[steaver]

...If you never heard or listened to any opinions about Jesus or declarations on beliefs and ONLY read through the bible's historical letters/books? Could you really come to pure conclusions without letting commentaries and preaching that you have heard bias your conclusions?

 

[utilyan]

...If you never heard or listened to any opinions about Jesus or declarations on beliefs and ONLY read through the bible's historical letters/books? Could you really come to pure conclusions without letting commentaries and preaching that you have heard bias your conclusions?

I remember as a child God being a very real Grandfather I haven't met and Jesus was like some uncle I haven't met. Reading the sermon on the mount struck me as insane and perfect I sensed this guy Jesus was fearless to express things I would be too afraid to even consider. Love your enemy, do good to those who hurt you. before that it was just good guys and bad guys, good should beat up the bad guys. Learning that they killed Jesus was a shock like why would anyone want to kill this man?

 

[atpollard]

...If you never heard or listened to any opinions about Jesus or declarations on beliefs and ONLY read through the bible's historical letters/books? Could you really come to pure conclusions without letting commentaries and preaching that you have heard bias your conclusions?

If you started in Genesis, you would probably quit somewhere in Leviticus, Numbers or Deuteronomy. Those lists of genealogies and accounting of temple plates and candlesticks are seriously tedious for a starting point when you are looking for God.

Skipping to the NT, yes, there are some truths that are so clear and obvious and repeated often enough throughout scripture that it really is hard to miss them. Other truths are subtle and may not be discovered without a teacher to enlighten you on what has come before and pointing out cultural nuances that we are ignorant of.

I was taught from a Wesleyan Holiness tradition (Church of God, Indiana) but read scripture and came to accept 'total inability', 'unconditional election', 'irresistible grace' and 'perseverance of the saints' [4 of the 5 points of Calvinism] before I had ever heard of Calvinism or Reformed Theology. So I read scripture and came to conclusions contrary to what people were teaching me. The only reason that I was not a 5 point Calvinist, is that I had never given a moment's thought to whose sins Jesus carried to the cross. I was just content that He had taken my sins ... what sins He chose to take beyond that seems like Jesus' business, not mine.

 

[steaver]

I was taught from a Wesleyan Holiness tradition (Church of God, Indiana) but read scripture and came to accept 'total inability', 'unconditional election', 'irresistible grace' and 'perseverance of the saints' [4 of the 5 points of Calvinism] before I had ever heard of Calvinism or Reformed Theology. So I read scripture and came to conclusions contrary to what people were teaching me.

That is so interesting. When the Holy Spirit called me into bible study, I poured over the scriptures daily crying out to God for wisdom that I may know the truth so I could teach others correctly. I came to reject all points of Calvinism except for OSAS. So I studied scripture and came to conclusions contrary to what I later learned to be Calvinism. I wonder why God chose to convince His children of two different doctrines? I'm sure you studied and prayed just as I did, but you was convicted by the Holy Spirit contrary to what I was convicted by the Holy Spirit of.

 

[atpollard]

That is so interesting. When the Holy Spirit called me into bible study, I poured over the scriptures daily crying out to God for wisdom that I may know the truth so I could teach others correctly. I came to reject all points of Calvinism except for OSAS. So I studied scripture and came to conclusions contrary to what I later learned to be Calvinism. I wonder why God chose to convince His children of two different doctrines? I'm sure you studied and prayed just as I did, but you was convicted by the Holy Spirit contrary to what I was convicted by the Holy Spirit of.

There is less of a gap between Wesleyan Arminianism and Reformed Theology than most people think. We just all get out our magnifying glasses and blow up those differences until they fill the entire field of view. Frankly, I can make a case from Scripture for either position ... whichever view you hold, there are some verses that sort of catch in your throat rather than being easy to swallow. At worst, that's where a lot of tap dancing begins.

The biggest problem with Calvinism and Arminianism is the caricature that the opponents paint of them. To follow the debate on some forums, you would think the choice is between Joel Osteen and Adolf Hitler.

What does it mean that God so loved the whole world?
What does it mean that no one can come to the Son, unless the Father draws them?
What does it mean that we are to count the cost of following Christ?
What does it mean that Jesus chose us and we did not choose him?

All of these snippets of the one great TRUTH need to be reconciled.

I have a personal suspicion, but no way to verify it. God calls people to himself in two very different ways. Using Biblical examples, there are the disciples of John the Baptist who start to follow Jesus and ask him where he is staying ... "Come and see" is Jesus' reply and they follow him. It is easy for someone called like that to read the scriptures and come to an Arminian conclusion ... Jesus called and we answered. Then there are those called like Saul heading to Damascus. They were not looking for Jesus and Jesus less "invited" than he "laid claim" to them. Someone like Paul finds Calvinism resonates with scripture.

So which way did God call people, like the Disciples of John or like Paul? Arminian or Calvinist? The answer in scripture seems to be 'both'.

So then the hair to be split is "Does God ineffectively call everyone?" (since not all are saved) or "Does God effectively call only some?" Those are questions that should not be easily answered.

 

[Yeshua1]

There is less of a gap between Wesleyan Arminianism and Reformed Theology than most people think. We just all get out our magnifying glasses and blow up those differences until they fill the entire field of view. Frankly, I can make a case from Scripture for either position ... whichever view you hold, there are some verses that sort of catch in your throat rather than being easy to swallow. At worst, that's where a lot of tap dancing begins.

The biggest problem with Calvinism and Arminianism is the caricature that the opponents paint of them. To follow the debate on some forums, you would think the choice is between Joel Osteen and Adolf Hitler.

What does it mean that God so loved the whole world?
What does it mean that no one can come to the Son, unless the Father draws them?
What does it mean that we are to count the cost of following Christ?
What does it mean that Jesus chose us and we did not choose him?

All of these snippets of the one great TRUTH need to be reconciled.

I have a personal suspicion, but no way to verify it. God calls people to himself in two very different ways. Using Biblical examples, there are the disciples of John the Baptist who start to follow Jesus and ask him where he is staying ... "Come and see" is Jesus' reply and they follow him. It is easy for someone called like that to read the scriptures and come to an Arminian conclusion ... Jesus called and we answered. Then there are those called like Saul heading to Damascus. They were not looking for Jesus and Jesus less "invited" than he "laid claim" to them. Someone like Paul finds Calvinism resonates with scripture.

So which way did God call people, like the Disciples of John or like Paul? Arminian or Calvinist? The answer in scripture seems to be 'both'.

So then the hair to be split is "Does God ineffectively call everyone?" (since not all are saved) or "Does God effectively call only some?" Those are questions that should not be easily answered.

The Holy Spirit will take and use any portion of scriptures to reveal Jesus to His own!

 

[InTheLight]

...If you never heard or listened to any opinions about Jesus or declarations on beliefs and ONLY read through the bible's historical letters/books? Could you really come to pure conclusions without letting commentaries and preaching that you have heard bias your conclusions?

This is fascinating, but I want to make sure I understand the parameters of the thought experiment you are laying down.

So, if a person were to read the Bible, and only the Bible, specifically the OT historical books. i.e. Genesis through Job (I guess through Job), then Acts through Jude, but no OT prophets, no Psalms or Proverbs, no Gospels, and no book of Revelation. Are those the parameters?

 

[steaver]

This is fascinating, but I want to make sure I understand the parameters of the thought experiment you are laying down.

So, if a person were to read the Bible, and only the Bible, specifically the OT historical books. i.e. Genesis through Job (I guess through Job), then Acts through Jude, but no OT prophets, no Psalms or Proverbs, no Gospels, and no book of Revelation. Are those the parameters?

You could separate it into segments. But I was suggesting having read all of the Bible, with only the Holy Spirit of God as your teacher.

 

[steaver]

So then the hair to be split is "Does God ineffectively call everyone?" (since not all are saved) or "Does God effectively call only some?" Those are questions that should not be easily answered.

Since not all are saved does not make Gods call ineffective. For He has made the way and has given us a choice.

 

[InTheLight]

You could separate it into segments. But I was suggesting having read all of the Bible, with only the Holy Spirit of God as your teacher.

If I have access to the Gospels and the OT prophet's then, yes, believing in Christ would be possible. Without the Gospels it's still possible but not as easily realized.

Your thread title asked What Would You Believe?" And your post asked, "could you reach pure conclusions?" Seems like you are asking two different things. Can you elaborate?

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL

 

[JonShaff]

I would be a bapticostal. Which is what I jokingly identify myself as now. Lol.

 

[JonShaff]

Funny you ask this question...I JUST asked this same question to my friend TODAY!

 

[steaver]

Your thread title asked What Would You Believe?" And your post asked, "could you reach pure conclusions?" Seems like you are asking two different things. Can you elaborate?

Just think of all the competing beliefs just between Christians. Why do Christians do what Paul admonished us not to do?

"Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.
1Co 1:11
For it hath been declared unto me of you, my brethren, by them which are of the house of Chloe, that there are contentions among you.
1Co 1:12
Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ.
1Co 1:13
Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?"

Why do Christians identify themselves with certain men or women? "I am of Calvin, I am of Arminius, I am of Ammann, etc, etc and in the case of false religions that claim to be Christian...I am of White, I am of Smith, I am of Rutherford, etc, etc"

What would you believe if all you had was the Bible and the Spirit? Ignoring all other voices trying to persuade you to follow another's pov.

 

[1689Dave]

...If you never heard or listened to any opinions about Jesus or declarations on beliefs and ONLY read through the bible's historical letters/books? Could you really come to pure conclusions without letting commentaries and preaching that you have heard bias your conclusions?

The Lord converted me from out of the blue when I wasn't looking for him. Convicted of sin and repentant, but full of joy like I never knew before, I began reading the bible. And from there I began looking for a church to baptise me. After sampling Pentecostalism, Baptist fundamentalism, Reformed and Arminian Dispensationalism, I began studying theology on my own, building up a sizeable library. Over the course of 40 years, I settled in on the Baptists of the 1600s as being the closest to the scriptures in my thinking. But no creed is perfect. So I normally say I'm a Christian that thinks a lot like the Baptists of the 1600s did.

 

[atpollard]

Since not all are saved does not make Gods call ineffective. For He has made the way and has given us a choice.

That is semantic tap dancing.

Imagine Genesis 1 where God says "let there be plants" and only half of the plants that God intended sprang into being.
Now imagine a God who draws all men to Christ, but only half of the men choose to be saved.
Both call into question God's omnipotence and soverignty. God is not 100% in charge of who is saved: the final power rests with men's choice. Thus God's call is not 100% effective (in the sense that a Calvinist claims that whom God chooses, God draws and God saves).

The Calvinist equivalent 'tap dance' is attempting to argue that by choosing some to be saved, that God has not predestined those 'not chosen' for damnation. It is an inescapable conclusion that choosing one means not choosing another, setting the fate of both.

 

[steaver]

That is semantic tap dancing.

Imagine Genesis 1 where God says "let there be plants" and only half of the plants that God intended sprang into being.

I don't think that it is a dance. I don't think the Genesis example is comparable at all. If I said to you, I have created you and I have the sovereign power to save you or destroy you, and in My sovereignty I am offering you the freedom to choose between these two paths, in My sovereignty I would desire that all whom I have created would choose life, however, in My sovereignty I have given each person a choice.

The call to repentance is effectual no matter the personal choice. The effect is either salvation or damnation. God is sovereign either way and His plan is effectual in either choice made by the sinner.

 

[Yeshua1]

I don't think that it is a dance. I don't think the Genesis example is comparable at all. If I said to you, I have created you and I have the sovereign power to save you or destroy you, and in My sovereignty I am offering you the freedom to choose between these two paths, in My sovereignty I would desire that all whom I have created would choose life, however, in My sovereignty I have given each person a choice.

The call to repentance is effectual no matter the personal choice. The effect is either salvation or damnation. God is sovereign either way and His plan is effectual in either choice made by the sinner.

What if the same God also knew that sinners are not capable on making a decision for salvation due to them being under bondage of sin and enslaved to the flesh?

 

[steaver]

What if the same God also knew that sinners are not capable on making a decision for salvation due to them being under bondage of sin and enslaved to the flesh?

Good point. That would be the T in TULIP which I was not able to conclude in my twenty years of scripture study. So I reject the belief of Calvin's Total Depravity.

 

[Yeshua1]

Good point. That would be the T in TULIP which I was not able to conclude in my twenty years of scripture study. So I reject the belief of Calvin's Total Depravity.

How do you see the definition of that being?

 

[steaver]

What if the same God also knew that sinners are not capable on making a decision for salvation due to them being under bondage of sin and enslaved to the flesh?

Also, Why would the same God tell His created to make a choice if there was no choice to be made? Does this same God like toying with His created in that way?