Why I Prefer Not To Be Called An Arminian:
I’ve often told people that I am not an Arminian, but that is not because I dislike Arminians; nor is it because we disagree over that many issues. In fact, Traditional Southern Baptists (Provisionists), like myself, agree with much of what many good Arminian brothers teach. But, there are several differences I have with my Arminian friends that should be noted. For instance, some classical Arminians have various views on the doctrine of eternal security and apostasy, which we address elsewhere.
Also, some Arminians teach the “foresight faith view” in order to explain God’s eternal plan of election. When I was a young Calvinist, I had been lead to believe the only real alternative to Calvinism was this seemingly strange concept of God “looking through the corridors of time to elect those He foresees would choose Him.” Notable Calvinistic teachers almost always paint all non-Calvinistic scholars as holding to this perspective. Once I realized other scholarly views were available, I became more open to consider them objectively.
I found a much more robust and theologically sound systematic in what is called “The Corporate View of Election,” which so happened to be the most popular view among the biblical scholars of my own denomination (Southern Baptists). Therefore, I have come to affirm the unified declaration of the author’s in the book titled Whosoever Will:
“We are neither Calvinists nor Arminians; we are Baptists!”
Even among Traditional Baptists, there exists various nuances over the nature of fallen humanity in response to God’s revelation. However, the Traditional statement, signed by many notable Traditional scholars, clearly denounces the concept of “Total Inability,” a view maintained by all Calvinists and many classical Arminian scholars.
“Total Inability” is the belief that all humanity is born incapable of willingly coming to Christ for salvation even in light of the Holy Spirit wrought truth of the Gospel, unless God graciously works to empower the will of lost man (effectually by way of regeneration for the Calvinist, and sufficiently by way of “prevenient grace” for the Arminian). Traditionalists simply do not accept the unfounded presumption that the libertarian freedom of man’s will was lost due to the Fall. As article two of the Traditional statement says,
“We deny that Adam’s sin resulted in the incapacitation of any person’s free will or rendered any person guilty before he has personally sinned.”
Notable Arminian scholar, Roger Olson, critiqued the Southern Baptist Traditional statement by calling it “Semi-Pelagian,” and I would like to respond to that charge here.
A Cordial Response To Dr. Roger Olson
I have much respect for the scholarship and work of Dr. Olson. I have used his resources many times in my own studies and find him to be a thoughtful and thoroughly biblical scholar in all respects. He unashamedly wears the label “Arminian” and defends his views as well as I have ever seen. However, I do have a small bone to pick with his teaching on “Prevenient Grace.” Dr. Olson clearly explains this perspective:
“Prevenient grace” is simply a term for the grace of God that goes before, prepares the way, enables, assists the sinner’s repentance and faith (conversion). According to classical Calvinism this prevenient grace is always efficacious and given only to the elect through the gospel; it effects conversion. According to classical Arminianism it is an operation of the Holy Spirit that frees the sinner’s will from bondage to sin and convicts, calls, illumines and enables the sinner to respond to the gospel call with repentance and faith (conversion). Calvinists and Arminians agree, against Pelagianism and semi-Pelagianism, that the sinner’s will is so depraved and bound to sin that it cannot respond positively to the gospel call without supernatural grace. [LINK]
Notice that Dr. Olson frames the discussion in such a way as to set up “supernatural grace” as separate from “the gospel call,” as if the “graciously prevenient” work of God cannot actually be the work of the gospel itself. If I had the opportunity to press Olson on this point I would have to ask if he thinks the inspiration and preservation of our scriptures is a supernatural and gracious work of God or not. If it is, then the entire Arminian premise appears to be flawed.
What must be noted is that the gospel itself meets EVERY needed characteristic of this so-called “prevenient grace.” Using Dr. Olson’s own definition: The gospel goes before, prepares the way, enables and assists the sinner’s repentance and faith (Romans 10:14-17).
The gospel is inspired, written, carried, proclaimed and preserved by the direct activity of the Holy Spirit Himself. What more must He personally do to enable the lost who hear it to respond to it? Does God’s grace really need more grace to work? If so, where is that principle clearly laid out in the scripture?
In another article, Dr. Olson specifically addresses the “Traditional Statement” produced by many respected theologians associated with the SBC. The statement, according to Dr. Olson’s own article, reads as follows:
Article Two: The Sinfulness of Man
We affirm that, because of the fall of Adam, every person inherits a nature and environment inclined toward sin and that every person who is capable of moral action will sin. Each person’s sin alone brings the wrath of a holy God, broken fellowship with Him, ever-worsening selfishness and destructiveness, death, and condemnation to an eternity in hell.
We deny that Adam’s sin resulted in the incapacitation of any person’s free will or rendered any person guilty before he has personally sinned. While no sinner is remotely capable of achieving salvation through his own effort, we deny that any sinner is saved apart from a free response to the Holy Spirit’s drawing through the Gospel.
Genesis 3:15-24; 6:5; Deuteronomy 1:39; Isaiah 6:5, 7:15-16;53:6; Jeremiah 17:5,9, 31:29-30; Ezekiel 18:19-20; Romans 1:18-32; 3:9-18, 5:12, 6:23; 7:9; Matthew 7:21-23; 1 Corinthians 1:18-25; 6:9-10;15:22; 2 Corinthians 5:10; Hebrews 9:27-28; Revelation 20:11-15” (italics added)
This article seems to support the perspective I expounded upon above to which Dr. Olson takes to task by stating:
A classical Arminian would never deny that Adam’s sin resulted in the incapacitation of any person’s free will. Classical Arminianism (as I have demonstrated in Arminian Theology: Myths and Realities) strongly affirms the bondage of the will to sin before and apart from prevenient grace’s liberating work. Now, perhaps this is the point of the statement’s mention of “the Holy Spirit’s drawing through the Gospel.” But that, too, can be interpreted in a semi-Pelagian way.
Dr. Olson makes the same fundamental error of our Calvinistic brethren by assuming one’s bondage to sin equals a moral incapacity to humble himself and confess this bondage in light of the truth plainly made known by the gospel. As far as I can tell, this is never taught in scripture but is merely theological baggage presumed upon the text.
In contrast to Olson, I would contend that it is by the means of the Holy Spirit inspired gospel that God directly works within man’s hearts prior to their acceptance and/or rejection of the appeal made by that gospel. In fact, I believe that is what the scripture is contending when it says:
“For the word of God is alive and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart” (Heb. 4:12).
This penetrating work into the “soul and spirit” sounds like the work of “prevenient grace” described by my Arminian brethren, yet the author of Hebrews simply refers to “the word of God” as accomplishing this work, not some extra working of grace that aids the otherwise incapacitated nature of fallen man.
Here are other passages that seem to teach that the scriptures, God’s inspired words, are sufficient even for the lost:
“…you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness” (2 Timothy 3:15-16).
And
“Consequently faith comes from what is heard, and what is heard comes through the preached word of Christ” (Rom. 10:17).
And
“The words I have spoken to you—they are full of the Spirit and life” (John 6:63)
The Early Church Fathers likewise seemed to agree with this understanding:
Athanasius wrote, “The Holy Scriptures, given by inspiration of God, are of themselves sufficient toward the discovery of truth.”
Irenaeus, (130-202) wrote, “We have known the method of our salvation by no other means than those by whom the gospel came to us; which gospel they truly preached; but afterward, by the will of God, they delivered to us in the Scriptures, to be for the future the foundation and pillar of our faith,” (Adv. H. 3:1)
Olson continues to make his case by stating:
“Semi-Pelagians such as Philip Limborch and (at least in some of his writings) Charles Finney affirmed the necessity of the gospel and the Holy Spirit’s enlightening work through it for salvation. What made them semi-Pelagian was their denial or neglect of the divine initiative in salvation (except the gospel message).”
EXCEPT THE GOSPEL MESSAGE?!? That is kind of a huge exception to leave hanging there in a parenthetical afterthought. It is the GOSPEL–the “power of God unto salvation” (Rom. 1:16)–the very appeal of Christ Himself for all to be reconciled from the fall (2 Cor. 5:20). Can we…or should we “EXCEPT it” from being “the divine initiative in salvation” without very clear biblical cause? Olson continues:
The problem with this Southern Baptist statement is its neglect of emphasis on the necessity of the prevenience of supernatural grace for the exercise of a good will toward God (including acceptance of the gospel by faith). If the authors believe in that cardinal biblical truth, they need to spell it out more clearly.
It seems only to be unclear to one who presumes that an additional work of supernatural grace is needed above that which is accomplished by the gospel itself, which begs the question of our disagreement:
Is another work of divine grace, besides that which the gospel accomplishes, needed to enable the lost to respond?
Show me in the Bible where such additional grace is said to be needed and I’ll be the first to recant my perspective on this. But, we must be careful in this discussion not to misapply texts having to do with God purposefully and judicially blinding the truth of the gospel from large numbers of Israelites due to their own rebellion. Dr. Olson certainly would not want to make the same hermeneutical mistake as the Calvinist on this point. Dr. Olson continues:
And they need to delete the sentence that denies the incapacitation of free will due to Adam’s sin. Leaving the statement as it stands, without a clear affirmation of the bondage of the will to sin apart from supernatural grace, inevitably hands the Calvinists ammunition to use against non-Calvinist Baptists.
With all due respect to Dr. Olson (and I really mean that when I say it), but the classical Arminians are strange bed-fellows with the Calvinists when it comes to their individualizing of the text and this particular error of separating the grace from its means. God’s gracious means to enable faith IS the Gospel. The TRUTH will set you free (John 8:32). The very words that Christ spoke and gave us to proclaim are “spirit and life” (John 6:63). Faith comes by hearing God’s gospel truth (Romans 10:14), and we will be judged by the very words of Christ (John 12:48). Dr. Olson continues:
It doesn’t matter what “most Baptists” believe or what is the “traditional Southern Baptist understanding.” For a long time I’ve been stating that most American Christians, including most Baptists, are semi-Pelagian, not Arminian and not merely non-Calvinist.
Likewise, it does not matter what classical Arminians believe or how ancient councils have framed this discussion. It is never right to label and dismiss people with manmade Catholic titles of heresy, especially when we all deny the heretical component of that original doctrine (i.e the denial of the sin nature and our need for a Savior from conception).
I would love to set aside the Pelagian boogeyman labels for a time and have a biblical conversation about any passage which Dr. Olson believes supports the unfounded idea that fallen humanity are born in such a condition that they cannot willingly respond to God’s own Holy Spirit inspired appeals to be reconciled from the Fall. It seems to me that God’s gospel appeals, in and of themselves, would be sufficient to do what He means for them to do. John 20:31 clearly lays out what his inspired words are meant to do:
“…these [scriptures] have been written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name.”
Must we muddy the waters by suggesting that God, at some unknown point in the life of everyone, has to move in some other gracious way to enable all people to respond to the already gracious, powerful, Holy Spirit wrought truth of the gospel? What text necessitates such complex theological explanations? Why create a redundant theological term when the biblical word is more than sufficient? The GOSPEL is God’s enabling grace and the ONLY reason some do not have “ears to hear” is if they have become blinded or calloused against it because they have continually closed their eyes to the truth (John 12:39-41; Acts 28:23-28). There is nothing in scripture, as far as I can tell, which suggests men are born in such condition that would prevent them from responding to “the double edge sword” of the Holy Spirit’s soul piercing gospel truth (Heb. 4:12).
Olson writes:
Calvinists and Arminians stand together, with Scripture, against semi-Pelagianism. (Romans 3:11 and 1 Corinthians 4:7 to name just two passages.)
Regarding Romans 3:11, the teaching that “no one seeks God,” does not prove that no one can respond to God’s gracious means to seek and save us (i.e. through the gospel appeal). And the context of the 1 Corinthians 4:7 passage ironically warns us against saying you are of Paul or Apollos (i.e. of Calvin or Arminius) because “what do you have that you were not given?” How that supports the concept that the gospel itself is not a sufficient work of supernatural enabling grace is beyond me. In a follow up comment, Dr. Olson gives this less than helpful “litmus test” to determine if one falls into the heretic category:
The litmus test is this: Do you believe the initiative in salvation (speaking here of the individual’s salvation) is God’s or the human person’s? Can a sinner exercise a good will toward God apart from special assisting grace? If the answer to the first question is “God’s” and to the second is “no,” then I will count you an Arminian, not a semi-Pelagian.
Of course I believe God takes the initiative in salvation. He takes the initiative by sending the Law, His Son, the Spirit, the apostles, the Scriptures, and His Bride filled with Holy Spirit filled messengers to carry his powerful gospel appeal to every living creature. So, would I pass his first test question?
To Olson’s second inquiry, I would quickly say “no, a sinner cannot exercise faith apart from hearing the gracious truth of the gospel appeal.” Faith does come by hearing, after all. How will they believe in one whom they have not heard (Rom. 10)? So, would I pass his second test question, or can we assume the good doctor forgot his parenthetical exception of “the gracious gospel truth” leaving me to fail his heretical litmus test?
Means Mean Something:
Both Arminians and Traditionalists believe the Holy Spirit is personally working to enable the lost to come to faith so as to be saved. We disagree as to the MEANS by which the Holy Spirit does this.
For instance, one Arminian friend of mine said to me, “In my mind even the thought experiment of whether the gospel is sufficient without the personal work of the Holy Spirit makes no sense…” I agree with him, that does not make any sense.
Do you see the clear contrast between the Arminian and myself on this point? The Arminian thinks I believe “the gospel is sufficient without the personal work of the Holy Spirit,” whereas I actually believe, “the gospel is sufficient BECAUSE it is the personal work of the Holy Spirit.”
Should we ever conclude that God’s words, graciously inspired by His Spirit, are somehow insufficient to lead anyone who hears them to faith and repentance?
Need there be some kind of extra grace that makes the grace of the gospel powerful enough to lead one to salvation? I see no convincing evidence of this need in scripture, do you? If you do see it, is that because God has granted you a grace which makes you more capable of seeing truths revealed in scripture that He has kept from me and other believers? Or could it simply be that we all have the same gracious revelation and any errors of interpretation or suppressing of its truth is due only to our own free choices?
I suspect that much of the dispute within in the church over the centuries would not have been necessary if we simply dropped this unfounded presupposition that God’s gracious work needs more grace to work.
First.
One can believe in corporate election and still be an Arminian because it is classified as an Arminian alternative.
From the Society of Evangelical Arminians website…
“The non-traditional Arminian view of election is known as corporate election. It observes that the election of God’s people in the Old Testament was a consequence of the choice of an individual who represented the group, the corporate head and representative.”
So adhering to “corporate election” does not distance oneself from Arminianism, but rather embraces it. Simply put, corporate election is an Arminian doctrine.
Second.
“Even among Traditional Baptists, there exists various nuances over the nature of fallen humanity in response to God’s revelation. However, the Traditional statement, signed by many notable Traditional scholars, clearly denounces the concept of ‘Total Inability’, a view maintained by all Calvinists and many classical Arminian scholars…… Traditionalists simply do not accept the unfounded presumption that the libertarian freedom of man’s will was lost due to the Fall.”
I would just want to gently suggest that this might not be true. I have had on-line discussions with folks over at SBC Today (which is currently “off line” for the foreseeable future, so I am not able to provide the necessary dialogue). Suffice it to say that I was told that the authors of the TS believe in “freed will” and not “free will”. This, too, is an Arminian doctrine.
Third.
“Dr. Olson makes the same fundamental error of our Calvinistic brethren by assuming one’s bondage to sin equals a moral incapacity to humble himself and confess this bondage in light of the truth plainly made known by the gospel. As far as I can tell, this is never taught in scripture but is merely theological baggage presumed upon the text.”
Agreed. But if you adhere to TD/TI then you are forced to come up with a solution for it. Both Calvinists and Arminians believe in some form of irresistible grace, though the latter would deny it.
Now….
Romans 10:17 (NKJV)…
So then faith comes (how?) by hearing, and hearing by (what?) the word of God.
Here’s a perfect example.
Genesis 15:1-6 (NKJV)…..
After these things the word of the LORD came to Abram in a vision, saying, “Do not be afraid, Abram. I am your shield, your exceedingly great reward.” But Abram said, “Lord GOD, what will You give me, seeing I go childless, and the heir of my house is Eliezer of Damascus?” Then Abram said, “Look, You have given me no offspring; indeed one born in my house is my heir!” And behold, the word of the LORD came to him, saying, “This one shall not be your heir, but one who will come from your own body shall be your heir.” Then He brought him outside and said, “Look now toward heaven, and count the stars if you are able to number them.” And He said to him, “So shall your descendants be.” And he believed in the LORD, and He accounted it to him for righteousness.
What Abram/Abraham believed was the gospel of the Kingdom, the fulfillment of the Abrahamic Covenant of a land, a people, and a government. It had nothing to do with the cross, which Abraham knew nothing about nor did God expect him to. Abraham’s depravity wasn’t “overcomed” via regeneration nor was Abraham restored to a pre-fall condition (FREED will). God simply spoke and Abraham simply believed. God “speaks” to us today thru the written word. If the gospel of the cross is the means to which one is enabled (in other words, if it is thru the redemptive work of Christ on the cross which enables one) to believe, just how did those before the cross (from Adam to the thief) believe?
Finally.
John 8:31-32 (NKJV)….
Then Jesus said to those Jews who believed Him (not WOULD believe in Him, but those who DID believe in Him), “If you abide in My word, you are My disciples indeed. And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.”
According to Calvinism/Arminianism you must be FREED to believe the TRUTH.
Dr. Flowers writes, “some Arminians teach the “foresight faith view” in order to explain God’s eternal plan of election. When I was a young Calvinist, I had been lead to believe the only real alternative to Calvinism was this seemingly strange concept of God “looking through the corridors of time to elect those He foresees would choose Him.” Notable Calvinistic teachers almost always paint all non-Calvinistic scholars as holding to this perspective. Once I realized other scholarly views were available,…”
Dr. Flowers says that other scholarly views are available to explain God’s foreknowledge and then he drops it. It would be nice to cite something. I am only familiar with the Calvinist view (God decrees the future) and the Arminian view (God looks into the future) and the “It.s a mystery” view. If there is another view, scholarly or otherwise, that explains God’s foreknowledge of the future, it would really be nice to know what it is. Many of us do not have access to scholarly journals and do not generally read of new thinking on issues by scholars. How about a little information dissemination here.
I may not be right but I believe that God is omniscient and outside of both space and time. he does not look into the future because all happens before Him in the now, no future, present or past. As to choice He knows what will happen regardless of what choice we may make. As in His word ““Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the mighty works which were done in you had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes.” (Matthew 11:21, NKJV) so here we see God knowing what would have happened though it did not, I believe that this concept applies to all life if we pick “A” God know what will happen, if “B” still knows what will happen and so on… yet through it all His eternal Plan is never thwarted nor changed. Just my thoughts take them for what they are worth.
I have brought this thought up many time,
If God truly desires the Salvation of all, why did he not do what would have resulted in Tyre and Sidon that would have resulted in them “repenting in sackcloth and ashes”
Just a thought, explanations are most welcome and thanks.
Molinism or Middle Knowledge is the most popular view outside of those two views and is widely held in the Christian Philosophy realm. William Lane Craig is probably the most popular advocate of this view, which you can read in his book “The Only Wise God”, many others as well such as Kenneth Keathley and Kirk MacGregor. It has also been written about quite a bit at free thinking ministries.
http://freethinkingministries.com/what-is-molinism-part-1/
http://freethinkingministries.com/the-mma-mere-molinism-argument/
Molinism is the most popular view outside of the Calvinist determinist and the Armenian foresight faith view and is widely held in the Christian philosophy realm. William Lane Craig is probably the most popular proponent of this view, which you can read about in his book “The Only Wise God”, many others as well advocate for this view such as Kenneth Keathley and Kirk MacGregor. It has also been written about quite a bit a freethinkingministries.com.
http://freethinkingministries.com/molinism-a-mutual-understanding/
He has several discussions and podcasts for you to listen to on Soteriology 101. He covers that in discussions on corporate election, Romans 8 and others.
jb81854 writes, “He has several discussions and podcasts for you to listen to on Soteriology 101. He covers that in discussions on corporate election, Romans 8 and others.”
That’s fine, but I don’t have the time to invest in listening to a lot of podcasts and few people really do. One purpose of a discussion board like this is for people to share things that they have learned that others have not. So, how about sharing? Can you rpovide a one sentence summary of alternative explanations for God’ knowledge of the future.
God knows the future. One does not need to infer God meticulously determined the choices of all creatures. https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/bg/Bo/LogicalFallacies/NY6XCqXp/Arguing-with-a-Presuppostionalist
jb81854 writes, “God knows the future. One does not need to infer God meticulously determined the choices of all creatures.”
But God still meticulously controls His creation. What happens outside (or within) His knowledge that He does not control?
Because God knows the future, that future is certain – it has been determined. How that future is determined seems to be the issue here.
Well Scientia Media (Divine Middle Knowledge) is certainly an alternate view. Dr. Flowers doesn’t seem to embrace it, but you can read about it if you do some research on Middle Knowledge or Molinism. Dr. William Lane Craig is the most famous modern proponent of it. His work is found at his website Reasonablefaith.org Tim Stratton is also a proponent. I’m investigating it, and finding myself exploring Molinism or Traditionalism as the more viable Biblical views on Soteriology.
Welcome Nathan,
Set foreknowledge in Calvinism, Arminianism, and Molinism.
The future has to be set before creation to work out only one way for it to be known with certainty before creation that it will work out only one way. The certainty of knowledge is not the cause of it being set to work out only one way… but there is no other cause before creation than God to make that certainty or to create the necessity of a future working out only one way.
But the future is not set to work out only one way… therefore it is impossible for God to know it as set to work out only one way for God does not know lies about the future. And that it is set to work out only one way is a lie according to Scripture.
God knows the future as He has revealed it to be in His Word… with some will bes and some might bes. That is the truth about the future, and God only knows the truth about the future.
That truth changes, but stays truth, as God’s knowledge of what will be turns to knowing it as what was, and His knowledge of what might be turns to will be if He wants it to or to what would have been if He wants it to. Pretty simple really! 😉
********************
If a LFW decision requires a LFW to exist to make that decision
Then the LFW decision does not exist before the bringing into existence of that LFW.
The LFW of man does not exist before creation, therefore the LFW decision of man does not exist before creation.
If a LFW decision requires at least two options to freely decide between in any given circumstance
Then there does not exist a LFW decision with only one option.
If God knew before creation that the future was set to work out only one way
And if God’s knowledge is never wrong or able to be altered,
Then something had to set that future to work out only that one way before creation for God to come to know that one completed future to work out only one way before creation.
God was the only “something” that before creation could “set” the future to only work out one way and for Him then to be able to logically come to know it as set for certain.
Therefore the future working out only one way not only makes the existence of a LFW decision impossible, since the LFW requires more than one option to freely decide between once the LFW comes into existence, it also makes the certainty of a LFW decision to be known before the creation of that LFW impossible.
Nathan Karrett writes, “Well Scientia Media (Divine Middle Knowledge) is certainly an alternate view.”
As I understand Molinism, it deals with decisions God makes before He creates the universe and man. Once God creates, then the world becomes a Calvinist world in which God’s knowledge of the future is perfect and complete. Calvinism says that God ordained the future and Molinism tells us how God did it.
rhutchin states:
“Once God creates, then the world becomes a Calvinist world in which God’s knowledge of the future is perfect and complete. Calvinism says that God ordained the future and Molinism tells us how God did it.”
My response:
In other words, we are just puppets in a play that God wrote, and God has a front row seat, eating his popcorn, and drinking a Coke, and once in a while, eats some Jr. Mints, and in the end, we can all take a bow while he claps to a job well done!
Then he’ll open a venue in Las Vegas for a repeat performance!
Ed Chapman
chapmaned24 writes, “In other words, we are just puppets in a play that God wrote,…”
Don’t know why you see only that outcome. We can be viewed as living, thinking beings on the stage of life in which God is always intervening to achieve His will sometimes interfering in our lives and sometimes not..
Well, that’s my take on Calvinism. On those times that he isn’t intervening, he’s taking a bathroom break, or at the concessions refilling his popcorn and coke. Intermission time, where the puppets can take a break and so what they WILL.
There lies strong confusion, or is it delusion, on the part of the Calvinist who attempts to assert that both Divine Determinism and free choice of the divinely controlled individual. They can, and will, assert it until the cows come home, but it is no more possible than it was when Calvin first made it up. (Okay, he gives the credit to Augustine, but he spelled it out.) Asserting that God ‘sometimes’ intervenes in the affairs of men, and sometimes does not intervene, but allows men to pursue their own choices is NOT permissible, in any way, shape or form under Calvinism. It is a false, illogical and non-Calvinist assertion that directly contradicts the essentials of the theological system. The fact that it is true, as non-Calvinists justly claim, does not allow the Calvinist to take it up, in order to ‘avoid the infidelity’, as Calvin puts it, or soothe the concerns of those who are uncomfortable with God ordaining rape and murder, then put it aside to once again defend the heinous doctrine of God bringing to pass all evil.
Calvin says, in his Institutes:
“Whoever, then, desires to avoid this infidelity, let him constantly remember that, in the creatures, there is no erratic power, or action, or motion, but that they are so governed by the secret counsel of God, that nothing can happen but what is subject to his knowledge, and decreed by his will.” (Vol. i. p. 186.)
“All future things being uncertain to us, we hold them in suspense, as though they might happen either one way or another. Yet, this remains a fixed principle in our hearts, that there will be no event which God has not ordained.” (Ib. p. 193.)
“They consider it absurd that a man should be blinded by the will and command of God, and afterwards be punished for his blindness. They, therefore, evade this difficulty, by alleging that it happens only by the permission of God, and not by the will of God; but God himself, by the most unequivocal declarations, rejects this subterfuge. That men, however, can effect nothing but by the secret will of God, and can deliberate upon nothing but what he has previously decreed, and determines by his secret direction, is proved by express and innumerable testimonies.” (Ib. p. 211.)
“If God simply foresaw the fates of men, and did not also dispose and fix them by his determination, there would be room to agitate the question, whether his providence or foresight rendered them at all necessary. But, since he foresees future events only in consequence of his decree that they shall happen, it is useless to contend about foreknowledge, while it is evident that all things come to pass rather by ordination and decree.” (Vol ii. p. 169.)
“I shall not hesitate, therefore, to confess plainly, with Augustine, ‘that the will of God is the necessity of things, and that what he has willed will necessarily come to pass.’ ” (Ib. p. 171.)
“With respect to his secret influences, the declaration of Solomon concerning the heart of a king, that it is inclined hither or thither according to the Divine will, certainly extends to the whole human race, and is as much as though he had said, that whatever conceptions we form in our minds, they were directed by the secret inspiration of God.” (Ib. p. 213.)
“What God decrees,” says this celebrated writer, “must necessarily come to pass.” (Ib. p. 194.)
Rh must frequent far different theaters than those with which I am familiar. My own children have long been deeply involved in theater, both in acting and directing. In every performance with which they have been involved, the script, with its inevitable ending, has been predetermined; written, if you will, by a controlling author who utterly dictates every word and action in order to meet his desired end. Every word, gesture and movement is carefully scripted to attain the desired laugh, sigh or tear. As natural realistic as they might appear to the audience, these words and actions were all predetermined, and, in their case, well rehearsed. The actors are never encouraged, or allowed, to reject the intentions of the author or director. Their role, as well they know, is not to think, ask questions and determine the direction the play should take. Even should they believe that they could craft a far superior act or scene, they are not allowed to rewrite or go off script.
This is the view of life that Calvinism dictates, however insistent its followers are that actors are not merely actors, but ‘choose’ the actions that appear in their God-dictated scripts. At least real life actors seek the roles they assume, and such roles are temporary. Perhaps they love the lights, and the applause that it promises. Perhaps it puts food on the table. But any actor who maintains his ‘freedom to choose’ while performing his scripted role is either a liar, a fool or a soon to be starving artist. If you agree to play a murderous villain, you will be expected to ‘perform’ as a murderous villain. You will scowl, lie and commit murder exactly as the script dictates.
According to Calvin:
“God, the great Creator of all things, doth uphold, direct, dispose, and govern all creatures, actions, and things, from the greatest even to the least, by his most wise and holy providence.”
It sounds like Calvin understands the theater better than many of his followers.
TS00 writes, “According to Calvin:
“God, the great Creator of all things, doth uphold, direct, dispose, and govern all creatures, actions, and things, from the greatest even to the least, by his most wise and holy providence.”
Yep – and all the while providing for those so governed to do as they will. None is coerced, impelled, forced to act except as they desire. God gave TS00 life and upholds him every day until He decides TS00 should die. During his life TS00 can and will do only that which God wills, not because he has any desire to serve God but because he desires to please himself.
There is a subtle error in your exegesis of Hebrews 4:12. Look at verse 13: “And no creature is hidden from his sight, but all are naked and exposed to the eyes of him to whom we must give account (ESV).” The pronoun “his” needs an antecedent, which, in context, can only be “the Word of God.” Therefore verse 12 is about Christ, not the Bible. Verse 14 makes this even more clear. Therefore Hebrews 4:12 does not support your position.
I have heard this understanding of this verse before, That it is talking about Christ and not the Word of God as being the Scriptures or the Gospel per say. It is plausible. I studied it out a long time ago so I do not remember everything. But this is a also a common understanding by some of Hebrews 4:12
But the written Word of God is elsewhere referred to as the “Sword of the Spirit” that God the Holy Spirit wields most powerfully.
Does not the Scripture also say in John 3 that “the sinner must be born again OF THE SPIRIT”
Most Non-Calvinist on here equate regeneration, being born again with conversion, believing in Christ. There is no way the Working of the Spirit can be denied in intimate connection with the preaching of the Gospel. Unless one denies what the Jesus himself said in John 3.
I’m really dumbfounded by all this. To me, it’s very simple. The word KNOWLEDGE was part of the title of the tree that was in the garden. Before they got knowledge, they were fine. Some disregard that part, it seems to me, and only concentrate on part that they disobeyed God by eating of it. But I submit that the disobedience of not eating of it is irrelevant to the conversation. KNOWLEDGE is what they got by disobeying God’s command. If your parents teach you not to play with matches, BECAUSE you will get hurt, and they disobey, and get hurt, it’s because they didn’t obey. The point is, they got hurt. They would not have gotten hurt, if they obeyed. So, Adam supernatural got knowledge.
Knowledge of good and evil is what convicts a person of sin. Without that knowledge, NO ONE is held accountable. Knowledge is what makes people ashamed, and a feeling of guilt consumes them.
Romans 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 goes into that, and explains the reasoning as to why Abraham did not have the law of Moses.
Galatians tells us that the law is our schoolmaster to bring us to Christ. But who is teaching the law?
The law convicts. The law brings guilt. The law is what brings us to salvation. Not some mysterious Holy Spirit Manipulating our minds, our movement, our thoughts, etc.
Romans 5:13, a verse that is largely ignored by those who teach Calvinism, and even those in the Reform circles. But that one verse is summed up in Romans 3, 4, 6, and especially 7.
Sin is the transgression of the law, and the law is the KNOWLEDGE of sin, and without that knowledge, sin is NOT IMPUTED.
That’s why the law is our schoolmaster to bring us to Christ, and once there, we don’t need the law. Then the Holy Spirit directs our moves for good works.
We are the hands, feet, and mouth of the holy spirit. We are the body of the holy spirit, called the body of Christ. The Holy Spirit works thru us to evangelize to others.
Good News, or the gospel can’t be good UNTIL they know what the BAD NEWS is first. The bad news, AKA the law, must be preached, because that law is what brings us the gospel. Thru us.
Abraham believed, and that’s all he needed. And that is three contrast between faith, and the law (SELF RIGHTEOUSNESS). NO LAW, NO CONVICTION, NO GUILT NO SIN IMPUTED.
BUT since the law of Moses began, that knowledge is needed to save people, bringing them to Christ.
Nothing else brings people to Christ but the law.
It has nothing to do with God electing anyone. A discussion on another blog post has myself, and another, agreeing that the only elect are unbelieving and believing Jews only. Not any Gentiles.
And why? Because God blinded them so that they are a light to us Gentiles. We are not a light to them.
Respectfully,
Ed Chapman
A good article, however, claiming that God has installed a law so that we inherit some sort of a sin nature which makes us sin is still, logically, putting the blame on God. Further, “It is never right to label and dismiss people with manmade Catholic titles of heresy, especially when we all deny the heretical component of that original doctrine (i.e the denial of the sin nature and our need for a Savior from conception).” This denial of an inborn sin nature just stems from putting Ephesians 2:3b back in its original context and understanding that this sin nature stems from free will choices. Just like Paul – the same author – uses the word for nature in Romans when he talks about, for example. women changing the natural for the unnatural.
I can’t thank you enough, Leighton. I’ve been searching and struggling with the Calvinistic doctrine for many years. Almost all of spiritual leaders/teachers I follow and listen to daily (Keller, Chandler, Matt Carter, Sproul, Koukl, Jen Wilkin and the Pastor of my local non-dom. Church) are either Calvinists or lean heavily that way and while I agree with almost all they teach, I have not been able to reconcile God’s love and redemptive plan with their Calvinists doctrine. It’s been heart-wrenching for me. Finally, you have done the heavy lifting and helped me read scripture in a manner that points to a different view of solteriology than the Calvinistic view or the Arminian view. Your work on this and your desire to share it is a true answer to prayer – my daily prayer.
I have posted many times on other threads that it seems like our Calvinist friends do not believe in the power of the Cross, the Word, and God’s grace. They claim there needs to be another “power” to bring about man’s salvation.
This article explains that the Gospel and Resurrection of Christ are power enough to save anyone who believes. Anyone who teaches that there needs to be something else does has a weak interpretation of Roms 1:16-17.
16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God that brings salvation to everyone who believes: first to the Jew, then to the Gentile. 17 For in the gospel the righteousness of God is revealed—a righteousness that is by faith from first to last, just as it is written: “The righteous will live by faith.”
FOH,
EXACTLY!
Now, if I could just get it thru people’s heads what the word, RIGHTEOUSNESS is all about.
To sum it up, self righteousness obtained thru obeying the law, or God’s righteousness WITHOUT the law. That’s in Romans!
That’s the same as saying that you have a choice… either you can WORK for eternal life, by obeying the law, and fail, or you can just believe and be done.
Faith or Law? Let’s weigh the options. No magic tricks, no weird explanation of what the word elect means, when those outside of the reformed doctrine knows that the Jews are the elect.
The word ELECT is the major stumbling block in all of Calvinism, including this Arminian doctrine. Cuz all it does is reword the whole bible on a premise that God chooses individuals to be saved.
Before I knew what a Calvinist was, I never heard such a fantasy story in all my life of being a Christian.
What I have seen is PROPHECY of Jesus played out using people, but I’ve never seen any evidence in the bible o God choosing any individual to be saved. It’s all Just total nonsense.
I have read ask references that Calvinists use to make their point, and I come to a total different comprehension of the passages. The no one seeks God has a context that they ignore. The I was shapen in iniquity has a context that they ignore.
And lastly, to have EXPOSITORY preaching as the sole means of preaching, ya miss Jesus a lot, just like the Jews who do expository preaching exclusively.
Jonah was a prophet. Expository preaching discusses what a bad man her was for disobeying God, blah, blah.
People, wake up. Jonah was used by God to prophesy about Jesus. 3 days, 3 nights? RING A BELL anyone?
That’s how God used the Jews. To show Jesus in prophesy.
Calvinism is very strange to any Christian outside of reform. They use terminology most Christians have never heard of. And yet, some non Calvinists call them brothers?
You ought to read what President Thomas Jefferson said about Calvinists. What he said, I echo.
Ed Chapman
chapmaned24 writes, “I’ve never seen any evidence in the bible o God choosing any individual to be saved. It’s all Just total nonsense. ”
If you are to oppose Calvinism on this point, how about addressing the Scriptures. Jesus twice says in John 6, “No one can come to me…” and people understand John to mean “believe” when he writes, “come.” Then in john 6, Jesus says, “All that the Father gives Me shall come to (believe in) Me,…” Who are those given by God to Christ? John 1, “He came to His own, and those who were His own did not receive Him. – “No one can come to me.” – But as many as received Him, – “came to Christ” – to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name, who were born not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God – “All that the Father gives Me shall come to Me,…”
Can you explain why this is just total nonsense?
rhutchin,
I’ll take your challenge, rhutchin, not a problem!
THIS IS A JEW vs. GENTLE thing, and I try to explain this to Catholics, too.
Did YOUR FATHERS EAT MANNA in the desert?
Context tells me that Jesus IS NOT SPEAKING TO YOU as a Gentile, but that he was speaking to the JEWS ONLY.
The problem with MOST reformers, is that they can’t seem to separate Jews from Gentiles, all because THERE IS NO JEW/GENTILE that Paul speaks about.
But did ya ever happen to notice that there are INDEED MALE AND FEMALE in Calvinism when the Bible states that there are NO FEMALE/MALE?
No, Jew/Gentil, but male and female for sure!
Jews can’t come or believe until GOD unblinds them. Gentiles do not have the SAME scales or veil as they do.
And God will unblind them, at some point, whether it be now…or after they die. THEY ALONE are the ELECT. No one else.
And we’ve already had that discussion on this blog, as well.
Ed Chapman
chapmaned24 writes, “Context tells me that Jesus IS NOT SPEAKING TO YOU as a Gentile, but that he was speaking to the JEWS ONLY.”
Christ does not say, “You cannot come to me…” which would have supported your conclusion. Instead, Christ uses a universal negative, “No one can…” There is no reason to limit this to the immediate audience. This reinforces john 1, “He was in the world, and the world was made through Him, and the world did not know Him. He came to His own, and those who were His own did not receive Him.” The world did not know Him, so it could not come to Him. His own did not receive Him – they could not per John 6.
Wanna Bet? The “NO ONE CAN COME TO ME HAS A CONTEXT THAT YOU ARE IGNORING!
“No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him; and I will raise him up at the last day. 45 It is written in the prophets, ‘And they shall all be taught by God.’ Every one who has heard and learned from the Father comes to me.” John 6:44-45
“and I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to myself.” John 12:32
Of course, the literalist could launch endless, futile debates over possible contradictions, or perhaps the concept of the Trinity, or any other thing that might distract and mislead from the real things that scripture teaches.
It was the sending of Jesus, and his being lifted up on the cross, that portrays the message of God’s love, inviting and drawing all men to come to their Maker, Father and Redeemer.
One could expound upon theories about who and how God draws and calls select individuals or groups of men. Or one might just spread the good news that God is love, desires that all men come to him and will greet them with open arms if they will turn from wickedness and embrace that which is true, just, good and right, to the benefit of all.
TS00,
You had stated:
“It was the sending of Jesus, and his being lifted up on the cross, that portrays the message of God’s love, inviting and drawing all men to come to their Maker, Father and Redeemer. ”
My response:
Another “Absolutely, Amen to that!”
My point in the conversation, which is about, “One could expound upon theories about who and how God draws and calls select individuals or groups of men” is the following:
Jews vs. Gentiles
Jews have a DIFFERENT “procedure” than that of the Gentiles.
The Jews are BLINDED, Gentiles are not. This goes all the way back to what Moses said in Deuteronomy, and repeated in Romans:
Deuteronomy 29:4 (NIRV)
But to this day the Lord hasn’t given you a mind that understands. He hasn’t given you eyes that see. He hasn’t given you ears that hear.
Isaiah 29:10 (NIRV)
The Lord has made you fall into a deep sleep.
He has closed the eyes of your prophets.
He has covered the heads of your seers so they can’t see.
Romans 11:8 (NIRV)
It is written, “God made it hard for them to understand.
He gave them eyes that could not see. He gave them ears that could not hear. And they are still like that today.”
But Gentiles ARE NOT BLINDED. The ELECTION, ELECTED, are those JEWS who God allows to SEE IN THEIR CURRENT LIFETIME.
Jews are the ones needing regenerated. Gentiles are not elected, therefore, Gentiles do not need regenerated, for Gentiles are not blind.
The Holy Spirit draws people, invites them, but ONLY by those who already have the Holy Spirit (Other Christians).
Romans 9-11 from the NIVr is VERY GOOD at explaining this stuff.
Ed Chapman
in my last, I said:
“The Holy Spirit draws people, invites them, but ONLY by those who already have the Holy Spirit (Other Christians).”
I needed to preface that I’m discussing the Gentiles.
THIS IS WHY I consider Gentiles attempting to evangelize the Jews a waste of time, futile. God has to unblind them before they will even consider what a Gentile is telling them.
I think that the only ones who can evangelize to Jews, is Jews themselves, for when a Gentile does it, the Jews consider that no different than the Holocost. I know. I’ve spoken to a few who think that.
We worship their God, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. They worship the same God. God’s in charge of the Jews, and they DO NOT believe, SO THAT we can see clearly.
The unbelieving Jews show us Jesus better than ANY Christian ever can. And I stand by that! And, to me, in my opinion, THAT’S WHY they can’t see, for in them, we see.
Ed Chapman
TS00 writes, “It was the sending of Jesus, and his being lifted up on the cross, that portrays the message of God’s love, inviting and drawing all men to come to their Maker, Father and Redeemer.”
Paul says in Romans 10, “For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile–the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him, for, “Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.” How, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them? And how can they preach unless they are sent?”
Thus, people are drawn to Christ by the preaching of the cross. Yet, even today, it is estimated that 3 billion people have never seen a Bible or heard of Jesus. Thus, Christ has not drawn each and every person to Himself through His death on the cross. However, Christ has drawn all in the sense of both Jews and gentiles (as the Calvinists maintain). At the least, the Calvinists are correct. The non-Calvinist has no way to show that Christ draws each and every person to Him, because the cross has not been preached to each and every person – not in current times and certainly not down through the centuries. When did preachers of the gospel go to China, South America, or central and southern Africa??
chapmaned24 writes, ” The “NO ONE CAN COME TO ME HAS A CONTEXT THAT YOU ARE IGNORING!”
A context you seem unable to explain.
“he came to his own” is the Jews!
FOH writes, “Calvinist friends do not believe in the power of the Cross, the Word, and God’s grace. They claim there needs to be another “power” to bring about man’s salvation.”
LOL!! You mean the Calvinist who says that salvation is only by grace (through faith). Wake up!
Then, “This article explains that the Gospel and Resurrection of Christ are power enough to save anyone who believes. Anyone who teaches that there needs to be something else does has a weak interpretation of Roms 1:16-17. ”
John 3 tells us that those who believe are saved – they will not perish. So, according to FOH, the Gospel and Resurrection of Christ are power enough to save anyone who believes (i.e. is saved). In Ephesians 1, Paul writes, “And you also were included in Christ when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation. Having believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit,…” So, what is Paul really telling us in Romans 1:16? FOH seems unable to explain this, but just throws it out as if it he knows something.
I’m jumping in here, rhutchin…I can’t grasp what you are trying to prove. What’s so hard about BELIEVE AND YOU ARE SAVED?
What you want to do is tell people that GOD MAKES YOU BELIEVE AND YOUR SAVED.
That isn’t the gospel…not at all. Believing the gospel on our own is NOT NOW, NOR HAS EVER BEEN “WORKS”!
The ONLY THING that works is, is OBEYING THE LAW OF MOSES. Faith is NOT WORKS, because faith is NOT A COMMANDMENT in the Law of Moses. That’s the ONLY WAY that faith would be a work. FAITH IS NOT WORKS.
Period!
Ed Chapman
chapmaned14 asks, “I can’t grasp what you are trying to prove. What’s so hard about BELIEVE AND YOU ARE SAVED?”
Not a thing. What is wrong with Christ saying, “…unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.”
rhutchin,
You stated:
“What is wrong with Christ saying, “…unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.””
My response:
Not a thing, BUT YA BETTER TELL ME MORE THAN JUST THAT, like first telling me WHAT THAT MEANS.
What does the word AGAIN means in Born Again?
What does BORN mean in Born Again?
Then, after you tell answer those questions, THEN we can move on!
Ed Chapman
chapmaned24 asks, “What does the word AGAIN means in Born Again?
What does BORN mean in Born Again?”
The phrase “born again,” refers to a second birth that is in addition to physical birth. Nicodemus was confused on this point, asking Jesus, “How can a man be born when he is old? He cannot enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born, can he?” Jesus then responded, “…unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.” In context, Jesus refers to physical birth (water) and spiritual birth (the spirit) – this a prerequisite for one to enter the kingdom of God (or to be saved).
rhurchin states:
“The phrase “born again,” refers to a second birth that is in addition to physical birth. ”
My response:
WRONG!
I know what Jesus said to Nicodemos. But your response is WRONG!
It has NOTHING to do with physical birth whatsoever. Born Again means a SECOND SPIRITUAL BIRTH.
Life always comes before DEATH. You were spiritually dead before being born again. BUT BEFORE THAT SPIRITUAL DEATH, you were once SPIRITUALLY ALIVE.
I know you don’t believe that, because you think everyone is BORN DEAD.
But that is NOT the natural order of things. Life comes before being DEAD in our sins and trespasses.
Ed Chapman
chapmaned24 writes, “It has NOTHING to do with physical birth whatsoever. Born Again means a SECOND SPIRITUAL BIRTH.”
This is the claim that is made. In support of this claim, he then offers his personal opinion, “Life always comes before DEATH. You were spiritually dead before being born again. BUT BEFORE THAT SPIRITUAL DEATH, you were once SPIRITUALLY ALIVE.”
Now, you just need to get the Scriptures to say the same thing, especially your claim that, “BUT BEFORE THAT SPIRITUAL DEATH, you were once SPIRITUALLY ALIVE,” and “Life comes before being DEAD in our sins and trespasses.” I see nothing in the Scriptures to support that claim. Apparently, you do. How about explaining the Scriptures you see supporting your claim.
From monergism.com website…
“Prevenient grace is not effectual but rather renders the sinner ‘neutral’ – able to decide for themselves whether they will accept or reject Christ. First, since we must always go to Scripture as our authority in matters of faith (especially maters of this magnitude) we must seriously inquire whether there is any biblical evidence whatsoever to substantiate the Arminian dogma that there is a state of being that God places sinners into that is neither regenerate nor unregenerate, an in-between state which is neither corrupt nor good. It is imperative that this ‘state’ is substantiated biblically, not merely by unaided speculation or logical necessity. Where does the Bible say that when God’s gives grace to people they become partly regenerate but not fully regenerate?”
On this matter, our Calvinist brother is somewhat correct. Now our Arminian brothers would bristle at the notion of fallen man being put in a “neutral” state, but they do believe that somehow man’s depravity has been, at least, somewhat diminished. Some Arminians have suggested that because of Christ’s redemptive work on the cross, all men have been partially redeemed and some of the noetic effects of the fall removed (Seriously, folks, I am not making this stuff up. Some Arminians really believed this). Anyway, according to this notion, fallen man is now partially redeemed and, I guess, mostly, but not totally, depraved, thus putting all men in a position where they can choose to accept or reject the gospel (Still makes me wonder how all those from Adam to the thief believed prior to the cross). And, by the way, this is all irresistibly done, because the lost sinner has no say in the matter. Just *poof* it happens.
All of this is the result of believing a false premise (TD/TI) and now being forced to come up with a solution for it.
Monergism.com continues….
“Again, the Bible never teaches in a clear and open manner the concept of prevenient grace. The above response is, therefore, simply to further render absurd this untenable belief. Arminians awkwardly force this on the Scripture in order to hold their system together. This alone should lead us to reject it. Unaided reason should NEVER be the foundation of our theological insights, especially one of such critical importance.”
Ironically, the Bible never teaches “in a clear and open manner the concept” of “regeneration precedes faith” either. Bless their hearts, but there is no “biblical evidence whatsoever to substantiate the ‘Calvinist’ dogma” as well. And the examples they do provide (Ezekiel 11:19, Ezekiel 36:26, Acts 16:11-14) are not only taken out of context, but contradict the very notion they embrace.
And, yet, our Calvinist brothers say prevenient grace must be “substantiated biblically, not merely by unaided speculation or logical necessity.”
Good grief.
“Arminians awkwardly force this on the Scripture in order to hold their system together.”
O the irony.
Phillip writes:
“All of this is the result of believing a false premise (TD/TI) and now being forced to come up with a solution for it.”
This is the essential false assertion of Calvinism and Arminianism, which is only one half step from Calvinism, which is only one half step from Catholicism.
Irresistible Divine Determinism is the main premise, which requires the doctrines of the TULIP in order to appear to align with scripture, when, in reality, it simply redefines scripture’s terminology. Obviously, if one is to assert Divine Determinism, there is no way around adopting some version of Total Depravity/Total Inability. If man retains a Free Will, i.e., an ability to think, reason and choose between good and evil, then Determinism makes no sense. Thus, Calvinism manufactures Inability by inventing a curse that renders man unable to think, reason and choose freely between good and evil. All who are familiar with the territory know that they accomplish this by distorting the meaning of the so-called ‘sin nature’ into some perverse curse whereby God renders man less than human, and now mere robots, enslaved helplessly to sin.
Is there such a thing as a ‘sin nature’ and a slavery to sin? Indeed, and we must study scripture without the lens of men’s traditions in order to understand what such things might mean. If one refuses to reduce all of life, and the gospel, into some sort of meaningless, irresistible enactment of a predetermined script, this will require understanding the metaphors that scripture uses to instruct us, as well as allowing scripture to define its own terms. Instead of introducing a-biblical, foreign doctrines ala Calvinism, the sincere seeker after truth will have to grapple with scripture’s sometimes confusing use of metaphor, poetry and hyperbole – just as he must with everyday language. If one were to take everything everyone says completely literally, as an autistic child does, one would be hopelessly confused and disheartened.
Scripture was not nearly so confusing until false teaching corrupted our thinking, leaving us with false definitions and distorted concepts. It is the stories, the narratives, the working out of meaning through the stories of men and women that provide the clues to the true meaning of the words and teaching of scripture. Jesus demonstrated well how having the mere written Word of God was useless, open to the whims of whomever wielded it. He made its meaning clear through the application of stories, and pointing to how God had interacted with men through the ages. Jesus made the dead Word into the living Word, so that all might be able to understand and receive life, unless they deliberately reject the conveyed messages of love, mercy and redemption for the lost and hopeless sinner.
TS00 writes…
“This is the essential false assertion of Calvinism and Arminianism, which is only one half step from Calvinism, which is only one half step from Catholicism.”
In my opinion, brother, Calvinism is Catholicism. Both reek of Augustinianism. And I consider Arminianism as Calvinism Lite (with half the baggage).
If the RCC starting preaching Augustinianism, in all of its glory, all our little Calvinist brothers would go running home to mommy.
TS00 writes, “Irresistible Divine Determinism is the main premise, which requires the doctrines of the TULIP…”
The main premise of Calvinism is that God is omniscient (and all the omnis that make up the Doctrine of God). Then, God is sovereign so God determines all things (divine determinism).
Then, “If man retains a Free Will, i.e., an ability to think, reason and choose between good and evil, then Determinism makes no sense.”
As far as I know, only Pelagianism asserts that man can “choose between good and evil”.
Then, ‘Calvinism manufactures Inability by inventing a curse that renders man unable to think,…”
TD/TI is derived from John 6, “No one can come to me…” and Paul’s letters. Nothing manufactured here – the Scripture is straight-forward.
rhutchin,
Haven’t I discussed the “No one can come to me…” to you NUMEROUS TIMES? Seems as tho you are IGNORING them all.
God sovereign enough to allow us to make our own decisions regarding being saved, where He STAYS OUT OF IT. All He did was to MAKE A WAY, and it is up to us to make that decision to grab that opportunity.
Ed Chapman
chapmaned24 writes, “God sovereign enough to allow us to make our own decisions regarding being saved, where He STAYS OUT OF IT. All He did was to MAKE A WAY, and it is up to us to make that decision to grab that opportunity.”
That’s fine. So, you have three possible outcomes: (1) All grab the opportunity and are saved; (2) some grab the opportunity and are saved; and (3) none grab the opportunity and are saved. You don’t go into that. You make a very general statement that everyone can agree with. It does nothing to explain John 6.
phillip writes, “All of this is the result of believing a false premise (TD/TI) and now being forced to come up with a solution for it.”
Jesus says twice in John 6, “No one can some to me…” Why is it wrong to make this a premise on which to build a doctrine of sinful man – that of TD/TI?
I’ve already responded a few moments ago regarding your “NO ONE CAN COME TO ME”.
Ed Chapman
CALVINIST KENNETH JOHNS – SYNERGISM MAKES MAN THE INITIATOR
Calvinist Kenneth Johns, in his book “Election: Love before time” argues against a Synergistic model of interaction between god and man within the process of a salvific events. His argument follows.
Those who hold to a conditional election -quote:
– Take away from divine sovereignty.
– Make it [divine sovereignty] subject to man’s free-will.
– Man is exalted to a position where he is capable of choosing god on his own.
– God is lowered to a position where he is only choosing those who choose him.
– God is not the INITIATOR – he is only a RESPONDER.
– Man moves FIRST.
– God moves SECOND.
– God’s choice is dependent upon man’s choice.
– It takes away from the sovereignty of god and adds to the sovereignty of man”
Now I don’t know if anyone here is familiar with economics and game theory. But if one is – then one will immediately recognize an underlying conceptual model in Kenneth Johns thinking – which economists call the: “ZERO-SUM GAIN”.
In game theory and economic theory, ZERO–SUM GAIN is a mathematical representation which states that when the total gains of two participants are added up – and the total losses are subtracted – the resulting sum equals zero.
The metaphor of cutting a cake is often used to exemplify this. When two parties cut the cake and one party takes a piece, the other party incurs a loss proportionate to the amount the other party took. However this is only the case because the cake, by its nature, represents a limited and finite resource.
Two logical consequences arise from this argument:
1) Divine sovereignty would have to be like the cake – a limited and finite resource. The available volume divine sovereignty would be limited. Since it is a limited and finite resource, it would then logically follow that man taking some as Kenneth Johns argues, effectively reduces the amount left over, proportionate to how much the man took.
2) If this argument holds true – then it is the case that **ANY** Synergistic interaction between man and the THEOS would have the exact same consequences Kenneth Johns stipulates. And this would obviously be the case for all creaturely sinful-evil: [natures, desires, inclinations, thoughts, choices, actions, etc].
Therefore any Synergism in the process of sinful evil events will:
– Take sovereignty away from the THEOS and give it to man.
– Exalt man to a higher position than he should be.
– Correspondingly lower the THEOS to a position than he should be.
– Make man the INITIATOR of the sinful event and make the THEOS the RESPONDER.
– Result in an interaction where man moves FIRST in the sinful evil and the THEOS moves SECOND in the sinful evil.
– Make the THEOS’ choice for the sin and evil dependent upon man’s choice for the sin and evil.
At this point – a logical thinker can recognize – this effectively obliterates Synergism altogether
And I would concur that Monergism is logically consistent with Theological Determinism and Synergism is not.
– The THEOS is the INITIATOR of the sinful event and man is the RESPONDER
– The THEOS moves the sinful event FIRST and man moves it SECOND
– Man’s sinful choice is dependent upon the THEOS’ sinful choice
– Man cannot choose sin or evil without the THEOS choosing it for him
Logically consistent with Theological Determinism:
EVERYTHING occurs Monergistically – including creaturely sins and evils.
br.d writes, “Two logical consequences arise from this argument:
1) Divine sovereignty would have to be like the cake – a limited and finite resource. The available volume divine sovereignty would be limited. Since it is a limited and finite resource, it would then logically follow that man taking some as Kenneth Johns argues, effectively reduces the amount left over, proportionate to how much the man took. ”
Where do you dream this stuff up. Johns argues that Arminians likens salvation, correcting your example, to ice cream and cake. God supplies the cake and man supplies the ice cream.
Then, “– The THEOS is the INITIATOR of the sinful event and man is the RESPONDER
– The THEOS moves the sinful event FIRST and man moves it SECOND
– Man’s sinful choice is dependent upon the THEOS’ sinful choice
– Man cannot choose sin or evil without the THEOS choosing it for him”
We can us Joseph and his brothers a s an example:
– The THEOS is the INITIATOR of the sinful event by giving Joseph a dream and man, his brothers, is the RESPONDER in jealousy.
– The THEOS moves the sinful event FIRST – God gives Joseph a dream – and man moves it SECOND – the brothers become jealous
– Man’s sinful choice (jealousy toward Joseph) is dependent upon the THEOS’ choice (to favor Joseph – but this is not sinful)
– Man cannot choose sin or evil (to be jealous) without the THEOS choosing it for him (giving him the ability to be jealous)
rhutchin
December 13, 2018 at 2:44 pm
That’s fine, but I don’t have the time to invest in listening to a lot of podcasts and few people really do.
br.d
But now one can’t say the information doesn’t exist.
Perhaps someday your schedule will relax a little bit and you’ll have more time. :-]
Alternative views are things open minded people take the time to understand.
br.d writes, “But now one can’t say the information doesn’t exist.”
So, let’s advance discussion by providing a summary, at least, of alternative possibilities. What value is served by withholding information regarding a claim that is made. You do that – making claims and refusing to provide support for them – and it detracts from open discussion among participants.
Dr, Flowers wrote, “Notable Calvinistic teachers almost always paint all non-Calvinistic scholars as holding to this perspective. Once I realized other scholarly views were available, I became more open to consider them objectively.” If his claim is true – “other scholarly views were available” – what is wrong with identifying them? I have listened to several of Dr. Flowers podcasts and never heard him talk about this. How about pointing people to the podcast where he goes into this.
1 thess 1:5, 1 cor 2:5,13 – showing the spirit enabling the understanding and reception of the gospel, or the word of God.
I know that Arminian theology does not embrace Theological Determinism.
But isn’t it the case that Arminius spent a large portion of his pastoral life and writings working to prove himself a Calvinist?
1582 accepted scholarship to study under Theodore Beza
1603 Appointed Professor Ordinarius highest rank in the university
1607 Letter from Arminius – to Amsterdam Bergomaster
“so far from this, after the reading of scripture, which I strenuously inculcate, and more than any other (as the whole university indeed, the conscience of my colleagues will testify) I recommend the commentaries of Calvin to read, whom I extol in higher terms than Heimichius himself, as he owned to me, ever did. For I affir that in the interpretation of the scriptures Calvin is incomparable, and that his commentaries are more to be valued than anything that is handed down to us in the writings of the fathers – so much so that I concede to him a certain spirit of prophesy in which he stands distinguished above others.”
He dies of Tuberculosis 2 years later.
The scripture says “come out of her and be not partaker of her plagues”
Isn’t it the case that Arminius did not come out far enough?
I certainly think that is the case with both Luther and Calvin.
The statement below is an extract from the Introductory statements in the opening of this thread:
“Is another work of divine grace, besides that which the gospel accomplishes, needed to enable the lost to respond?”
“Show me in the Bible where such additional grace is said to be needed and I’ll be the first to recant my perspective on this. But, we must be careful in this discussion not to misapply texts having to do with God purposefully and judicially blinding the truth of the gospel from large numbers of Israelites due to their own rebellion. Dr. Olson certainly would not want to make the same hermeneutical mistake as the Calvinist on this point.”
————— Here’s My Response to the above statement —————-
Matt. 13:3-8 “Then He spoke many things to them in parables saying : “Behold, a sower went out to sow. And as he sowed, some seed fell by the wayside; and the birds came and devoured them. Some fell on the stony places, where they did not have much earth; and they immediately sprang up because they have no depth of earth. But when the sun was up they were scorched, and because they have no root they withered away. And some fell among the thorns, and the thorns sprang up and choked them. But others fell on good ground and yielded a crop; some a hundred fold, some sixty, some thirty”
Here’s My argument based on Matt. 13:3-8 in response to the statement posted above.:
This parable of Jesus Christ addresses all types of people on earth concerning the command to offer of the gospel to sinners.
This passage addresses the challenge as to where in the Bible where such additional grace is said to be needed and I’ll ….”
1. It is obvious in this passage that an additional grace has been given to the good soil which was not done by God to the rest of the types of soil. This additional grace can be seen by the preparation made before the land has to be planted. Any farmer will not sow the seeds intentionally for those types of land which has no prior preparation made before planting.
2. The soil (man) himself has no capacity do the act of preparing (regenerating) himself. Only God can do this thing. Apart from divine intervention, man cannot come back to God in his own accord due to his being dead in sin, separation from God that makes him morally incapable. A patient in the hospital has to be infused with air in order to survive. The patient alone cannot do it for himself. There is no need for the doctor to ask permission from the patient before they will revive the patient because their mandate as Physicians is to save lives.
3. The preparation of the soil is the prior REGENERATING ACT of God before the gospel is to be sown. Without this divine act of God, the seed (gospel) sown will not prosper as it was shown by the other types of soil for all of them dies.
4. Why is it that God did not just prepare all of the types of soil so that all of us are happy and no more debates? Well, we cannot dictate God on the matter. He is the one who has the ultimate choice in Salvation, not man.
jtleosala,
YO BOY!!!!!!!!!! Theres that magical act again, pulling a rabit out of a hat.
That parable is not discussing any kind of grace at all. It’s discussing the INTEREST and dedication of the ones being given THE WORD OF GOD.
That’s all.
Nothing more.
Ed Chapman
I don’t think I’ve ever seen anyone use scriptures for proof texts as wildly as like JT does.
I expect any day now he’s going to assert John 11:35 “Jesus wept” explicitly proves regeneration precedes faith! :-]
What a hoot!!
br.d,
In all my years of studying Christianity, we never used the word, “regeneration” or the like. From my understanding, that word is used only twice in the bible.
Paul tells us, as BELIEVERS to “live in the spirit”, but, he also notes that Christians CAN INDEED live in the FLESH, which we call sinning, and that is a struggle.
For this lesson, I will use the word “regenerate” for a moment, even tho we don’t even use that word. We are CONTINUALLY, as a Christian, in a regeneration phase until we DIE. As long as we are in this body, we will STILL sin. We will not please the Father. We will not be able to spiritually discern things.
Paul was discussing BELIEVERS, not the heathen. You have to DIE DAILY to live in the spirit. Otherwise, you are living in the flesh.
We all live in the flesh…body…, and not the spirit, when we are sinning…and we will indeed sin, therefore, NOT EVEN THE HOLIEST CHRISTIAN HAS BEEN REGENERATED until they die, THEN the regeneration phase is completely over.
Believers, not the heathen, for as we already know that the heathen are not regenerated. That’s a no-brainer.
Ed Chapman
chapmaned24 writes, “In all my years of studying Christianity,..”
Strange way to put it. Normally, a believer would say, “In all my years of studying the Scriptures…” Studying Christianity serves no real purpose, does it?
rhutchin,
You had said:
” Normally, a believer would say, “In all my years of studying the Scriptures…” Studying Christianity serves no real purpose, does it?”
I said exactly what I meant.
How many Christian denominations do we have?
I have no interest in studying Buddhism, or Shintoism. Just Christianity, and we all know that there are MANY FLAVORS of Christianity.
Calvinism is but one of many flavors.
chapmaned24 writes, “I have no interest in studying Buddhism, or Shintoism. Just Christianity, and we all know that there are MANY FLAVORS of Christianity.”
As there are many flavors of Christianity, what gain is there to studying Christianity when all the profit is in studying the Scriptures.
rhutchin states:
“As there are many flavors of Christianity, what gain is there to studying Christianity when all the profit is in studying the Scriptures”
My response:
I’ve already studied scriptures…it’s the only way that I can DISPUTE your garbage. But I have to know what your garbage is, so I have to study what you people lie about from in the blogs and books, and pulpit, etc.
You people were lied to. So states SCRIPTURE!
chapmaned24 writes, “I’ve already studied scriptures…it’s the only way that I can DISPUTE your garbage. But I have to know what your garbage is, so I have to study what you people lie about from in the blogs and books, and pulpit, etc.You people were lied to. So states SCRIPTURE!”
I guess it behooves you to spend more time studying the Scriptures as your study of Christianity (and, particularly, Calvinism) has not been profitable given your inability to argue against Calvinism but only to offer your personal opinions.
rhutchin states:
“I guess it behooves you to spend more time studying the Scriptures as your study of Christianity (and, particularly, Calvinism) has not been profitable given your inability to argue against Calvinism but only to offer your personal opinions.”
Oh, it has been profitable for me, believe me! I can TELL THE WORLD “BEWARE OF FALSE TEACHING OF CALVINISM”, and GET OUT OF HER MY PEOPLE.
If I were you, I would DEPART Calvinism and run as fast as you can from it, and never look back.
Paul warned about false teachers, and he was speaking of false doctrines like Calvinism.
Ed Chapman
chapmaned24 writes, “Oh, it has been profitable for me, believe me! I can TELL THE WORLD “BEWARE OF FALSE TEACHING OF CALVINISM”, and GET OUT OF HER MY PEOPLE.”
Then, perhaps, we can look forward to some arguments against Calvinist positions down the road and an end not just to your personal opinions about Calvinism. That should be interesting.
rhutchin states:
“Then, perhaps, we can look forward to some arguments against Calvinist positions down the road and an end not just to your personal opinions about Calvinism. That should be interesting.”
I’ve been speaking against Calvinism for QUITE SOME TIME! I will continute to do so.
It’s not personal opinions, I can guarantee that. It’s KNOWING how to discern the truth from your lies.
Ed Chapman
chapmaned24 writes, “I’ve been speaking against Calvinism for QUITE SOME TIME! I will continute to do so. ”
You have been offering your opinions about Calvinism. I have yet to see you argue against Calvinist doctrine in any direct manner. Maybe you could start doing that.
rhutchin states:
“You have been offering your opinions about Calvinism. I have yet to see you argue against Calvinist doctrine in any direct manner. Maybe you could start doing that.”
My response:
I have been. You are not listening. You are doing one way speaking, but no listening!
Ed Chapman
br.d,
It’s like that unbiblical church discipline that the Calvinists harp on. I don’t see what they see at all.
What I see is a BROTHER (Christian) CONTINUALLY, or HABITUALLY sinning against another BROTHER, and all he has to do is say, “MY BAD”, AND POOF, he’s FORGIVEN, each and every time that he states, “MY BAD”. NO CHURCH DISCIPLINE HERE!
The only time that he is not considered a brother, is IF he DENIES the sin, COUPLED WITH (which get’s missed a lot) PROOF that he actually did the sin to begin with (accusations does not make it true, for there must be EVIDENCE), for there are false accusers, and the one makng the false accusation is the one who is NOT THE BROTHER.
Disagreeing with the pastor is not a sin. Sin defined is “Transgression of the Law” (1 John 3;4), and Romans 3:20 (the law is the knowledge of sin). False teachers abound, and we are supposed to disagree with the pastor if the pastor is not teaching the truth.
Discipline is defined as “punishment to correct a deficiency”. If a person is kicked out, that is not discipline, because nothing is done to correct the deficiency, therefore, there is no such thing as church discipline in either Matthew 18 or 1 Cor 5.
My point: Christians sin, Christians are NOT 100 PERCENT REGENERATED, CHRISTIANS LIVE IN THE FLESH.
br.d writes, ‘I don’t think I’ve ever seen anyone use scriptures for proof texts as wildly as like JT does.”
If you don’t use Scripture as proof text, what should you use?
jtleosala,
I think that many get the phrase, “The Word Of God” mixed up with the phrase, “THE GOSPEL”.
The Gospel is simple. Jesus died on the cross, and rose again the 3rd day proving eternal life and the resurrection.
But the gospel means NOTHING without first telling people what the bad news is FIRST! Then the gospel makes sense, then people can believe ON THEIR OWN, WITHOUT ANY ASSISTANCE FROM A MAGIC ACT, then they repent from the sins that they learned from the law, and THAT ALONE is salvation.
Again, no magic act. No PRE-SELECTION. Just the following in order:
Christian to heathen: The bad new is….But the good news is…
Heathen to Christian: I believe, God, I’m sorry! (That PESKY SINNERS PRAYER that many legalists MAKE FUN OF)
End result: Saved.
Easy. Why do Calvinists make things so complicated?
chapmaned24 writes, “Heathen to Christian: I believe, God, I’m sorry! ”
Jesus to heathen, “No one can come to (believe in) me…” “…everyone who commits sin is the slave of sin….You are of your father the devil,…because I speak the truth, you do not believe Me.” “…you do not believe, because you are not of My sheep. My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me;”
“…unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.” “as many as received Him…were born …of God.”
rhutchin,
You state:
“Jesus to heathen, “No one can come to (believe in) me…” “…everyone who commits sin is the slave of sin….You are of your father the devil,…because I speak the truth, you do not believe Me.” “…you do not believe, because you are not of My sheep. My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me;”
“…unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.” “as many as received Him…were born …of God.””
My response:
WHO IS “NO ONE”?
Acts 10:28
And he said unto them, Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation; but God hath shewed me that I should not call any man common or unclean.
Matthew 10:5-7 (KJV)
These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not: But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
Matthew 15:24
But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
Jesus was not talking to the HEATHEN. HE was talking to Jews. SPECIFIC JEWS.
I don’t know if you have read ALL of my comments on the two blog posts, but BORN AGAIN is when God’s spirit resides in you, and that didn’t happen ANYWHERE in the gospels at all, until Acts 2. No one was Born Again until Acts 2.
And, NO GENTILE was able to come into the fold until Acts 10.
Gentiles are not in the same category as the Jews.
The Jews are trying to be SELF righteous by the law, and Jesus tells THEM that they cannot be made righteous by the law. Gentiles NEVER HAD THE LAW OF MOSES.
—————————————————————
But NOW let’s get into the topic of the Gentiles:
IF the Holy Spirit lives in you, then YOU are the Holy Spirit’s HAND, FEET, AND MOUTH. YOU are the one that is USED to bring people to God.
John 4:24 states that God is a spirit. And in order to get to the spirit, you gotta go thru the BODY of Christ that shed blood.
YOU are the BODY OF CHRIST, and Christ’s Spirit (The Holy Spirit) resides IN YOU, and therefore, the work that God does is THRU YOU.
Therefore, NO ONE can come to, or believe in Jesus, if you DON’T DO ANYTHING.
Ed Chapman
Ed writes:
“YOU are the BODY OF CHRIST, and Christ’s Spirit (The Holy Spirit) resides IN YOU, and therefore, the work that God does is THRU YOU.
Therefore, NO ONE can come to, or believe in Jesus, if you DON’T DO ANYTHING.”
That is a very insightful and important concept . . . one that, unfortunately, most of historical, orthodox christian teaching appears to neglect and/or reject. Which means, if true, Satan has been using the institution of The Church to deceive and mislead many into pursuing doctrine and doing ‘Religion’ rather than being the hands and feet of Christ to share the good news of his love with all mankind.
TS00,
Absolutelly! Amen to that!
Ed Chapman
chapmaned24 asks, “WHO IS “NO ONE”?”
It is an universal negative applying to each and every person. You need to explain away the universal negative and argue for a limtied meaning. You have offered your opinion that it only applies to the Jews, but do not offer an argument for that opinion. When you then argue, “And, NO GENTILE was able to come into the fold until Acts 10,” you basically argue that gentiles are included in the John 6 declaration by Christ, “No man can come to me…” as that would, in context also include the Jews. Thus, we have the foundation for the doctrine of TD/TI.
Then, “IF the Holy Spirit lives in you, then YOU are the Holy Spirit’s HAND, FEET, AND MOUTH. YOU are the one that is USED to bring people to God.”
You refer here to the indwelling of the Holy Spirit per Ephesians 1, “In Christ, you also, after listening to the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation–having also believed, you were sealed in Him with the Holy Spirit of promise,” That does not impede the Holy Spirit acting on a person prior to their believing per John 3 and the operation of the new birth.
rhutchin,
I stand by what I stated. You just like to disagree with non-Cals.
We say yes, you say no. We say sunshine, you say clouds. We say green, you say blue. We say bacon, you say ham. Doesn’t matter what we say.
You had said:
” That does not impede the Holy Spirit acting on a person prior to their believing per John 3 and the operation of the new birth.”
My response:
YES IT DOES!
You have yet to tell me what AGAIN means in Born Again. You have yet to tell me what BORN means in Born Again.
Ed Chapman
chapmaned24 writes, “You had said:
” That does not impede the Holy Spirit acting on a person prior to their believing per John 3 and the operation of the new birth.”
My response:
YES IT DOES!”
So, you offer your personal opinion without support.
Then, “You have yet to tell me what AGAIN means in Born Again. You have yet to tell me what BORN means in Born Again.”
Sure, I did. I said it refers to spiritual birth as opposed to physical birth. It is a work of the Holy Spirit. Again emphasizes this as the first birth is physical birth, so one must be born a second time, Note Nicodemus’s confusion when he says, “He cannot enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born, can he?” Jesus explains, ““That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Do not marvel that I said to you, ‘You must be born again.’”
rhutchin states:
“So, you offer your personal opinion without support. ”
B.S.
I have provided scripture support NUMEROUS TIMES in the last year that I have been on this blog. You only read what you want to read.
Ed Chapman
chapmaned24 writes, “I have provided scripture support NUMEROUS TIMES in the last year that I have been on this blog”
But not against Calvinism. But we can look at future discussions to see if you really do as you claim.
How about looking at THIS discussion? You can look forward to anything you like, but until you have ears to hear, you will just speak and not listen.
chapmaned24 writes, “How about looking at THIS discussion? ”
I did; I saw nothing. How about restating one of your primary arguments against Calvinism. A simple cut and paste will suffice and should take no more than a minute for you to do.
rhutchin,
You write:
““…everyone who commits sin is the slave of sin”
My response:
1 Corinthians 15:56
the strength of sin is the law.
jtleosala,
Jesus explains the parable in Matthew 13:19-23
19 When any one heareth the word of the kingdom, and understandeth it not, then cometh the wicked one, and catcheth away that which was sown in his heart. This is he which received seed by the way side.
20 But he that received the seed into stony places, the same is he that heareth the word, and anon with joy receiveth it;
21 Yet hath he not root in himself, but dureth for a while: for when tribulation or persecution ariseth because of the word, by and by he is offended.
22 He also that received seed among the thorns is he that heareth the word; and the care of this world, and the deceitfulness of riches, choke the word, and he becometh unfruitful.
23 But he that received seed into the good ground is he that heareth the word, and understandeth it; which also beareth fruit, and bringeth forth, some an hundredfold, some sixty, some thirty.
Hi Chapman,
Would you say then that good ground is the responsibility of man and not God? And would you say that good ground is the end of a process, as oppose its original state, when it first received the seed? (According to how Jesus used the picture words)
Rgds in Christ
Clare
jtl writes, “1. It is obvious in this passage that an additional grace has been given to the good soil which was not done by God to the rest of the types of soil. ”
This is shown by the adjective “good” applied to this soil that distinguishes it from the other soils. The consequence of the soil being “good” is the way in which the word and the soil interact as distinguished from the other soils. If, in the parable, Jesus did not mean for us to attribute the soil being “good” to God’s grace, then to what should we attribute the soil’s goodness?
Roger Olson writes….
“I have always been one to embrace good theological words even if they are misused by others. I prefer to rescue them from the dustbin of theological vocabulary rather than discard them. ‘Total depravity’ simply means that there is no spiritual good useful for salvation and developing a strong relationship with God in any person born of Adam’s race (except Christ) that is not a super-added gift of God. With Calvinists I can affirm that we are all spiritually dead apart from supernatural grace, but I add only that 1) even the spiritually dead possess the formal image of God, and 2) supernatural grace heals that deadness so that sinners can at least make a decision to repent and trust in God and Christ or not.”
Can someone please show me in scripture where it states that fallen sinners are “healed” by supernatural grace (aka: prevenient grace) so that they may make a decision to repent and trust in God and Christ or not?
Scripture states that any spiritual healing is a result of the blood of Jesus Christ applied only by faith (Isaiah 53:5, 1 Peter 2:24, Romans 3:25). However, Olson (thus Arminianism) seems to suggest that all men are partially healed so that they can then exercise faith and thus be completely healed.
phillip asks, “Can someone please show me in scripture where it states that fallen sinners are “healed” by supernatural grace (aka: prevenient grace) so that they may make a decision to repent and trust in God and Christ or not?”
I’ll guess and say that the Arminian points to Ephesians 2:4-5, “God…when we were dead in our transgressions, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved),” They would then point to 2:8 and argue that salvation required that the one made alive must then exercise faith to complete the transaction. The Calvinist would argue that all whom God made alive would then exercise faith unto salvation while the Arminian would argue that not all would exercise faith unto salvation.
In all my years of studying Christianity, we never used the word, “regeneration” or the like. From my understanding, that word is used only twice in the bible.
Paul tells us, as BELIEVERS to “live in the spirit”, but, he also notes that Christians CAN INDEED live in the FLESH, which we call sinning, and that is a struggle.
For this lesson, I will use the word “regenerate” for a moment, even tho we don’t even use that word. We are CONTINUALLY, as a Christian, in a regeneration phase until we DIE. As long as we are in this body, we will STILL sin. We will not please the Father. We will not be able to spiritually discern things.
Paul was discussing BELIEVERS, not the heathen. You have to DIE DAILY to live in the spirit. Otherwise, you are living in the flesh.
We all live in the flesh…body…, and not the spirit, when we are sinning…and we will indeed sin, therefore, NOT EVEN THE HOLIEST CHRISTIAN HAS BEEN REGENERATED until they die, THEN the regeneration phase is completely over.
Believers, not the heathen, for as we already know that the heathen are not regenerated. That’s a no-brainer.
Ed Chapman
————- Hear’s My Response ————-
1. The “No-brainer Chapman” cannot afford to deny and to accept the fact that the audience of Jesus in this passage was the “great
multitudes who were gathered together in Christ beside the sea” . Jesus was not talking to the believers here except to his disciples if
they were also all present on that event. – this is supported by verses 1 and 2 of Matt. 13.
2. Are you trying to regenerate again those that are already (made alive, born again) believers in Christ? Is that correct?
3. Do you deny the gospel as the word of God that are sown to the sinners in Matt. 13 ?
4. I think no one will argue here that all believers in Christ still commit sins. There is no need for the “No-Brainer” to expose that here. It’s
irrelevant to the argument that I am presenting here. Better for you to engage with the text presented than to evade.
5. It seems to me that you have a defective grasp of Regeneration when that term cannot be the same with the doctrine of
“Sanctification”. Is this now the result of your hatred on that word that according to you made you to refrain from using it? Why?
If it was not God who made you “Born again-Regenerated”, then who made you alive spiritually if you claim that you are a believer in
Christ?
jtleosala,
Your question in #2 asks:
“Are you trying to regenerate again those that are already (made alive, born again) believers in Christ? Is that correct?”
I don’t understand your question.
We don’t use the word REGENERATION where I come from in Christianity. Second, NO ONE was saved until Jesus died on the cross, so no one was “Born Again” in Matthew 13. The Holy Spirit did not reside in anyone until Acts 2.
Your question in #3 asks:
“Do you deny the gospel as the word of God that are sown to the sinners in Matt. 13?”
I deny the PHRASES as used by people in Christianity. They are NOT synonomous PHRASES.
The Word of God begins in Genesis 1:1, whereas the gospel is CLEARLY stated in a VERY SMALL PORTION of the first half of 1 Corinthians 15, and that states the Jesus DIED on the cross (as the Passover Lamb, I might add), for your sins, and rose again on the 3rd day which proves eternal life.
The good news, or gospel, is within the Word of God, and IN the word of God is also BAD NEWS!
YOU are responsible for YOUR salvation, NOT GOD. God provides a WAY for salvation, and it is UP TO YOU to grab it, not God.
Now YOU might say that is “WORKS”. Faith is NOT A WORK.
The ONLY thing work is, is TRYING TO OBTAIN ETERNAL LIFE BY OBEYING THE LAW OF MOSES.
Abraham didn’t have the Law of Moses. He wasn’t working. And James 2 has nothing to do with Romans 4.
Abraham lived his belief, and that is what James is discussing. God did not IMPUTE that belief. Grace is the gift, not belief.
Yes, SANCTIFICATION is the word we use.
Again, Calvinism makes things so complicated. The Word of God is NOT that hard to understand by using COMMON SENSE.
God continued to have a relationship with Adam, JUST AS LONG AS HE MAINTAINED SACRIFICES. GOD sacrificed the FIRST animal to COVER THEIR SHAME (SIN/NAKEDNESS), both carnally AND SPIRITUALLY). And as long as those sacrifices continued, God maintained that relationship.
THEN JESUS comes on the scene, and states, “HEY, FELLA’S, I’M THE LAST SACRIFICE YOU WILL EVER NEED!” GOD SACRIFICED THE FIRST ANIMAL (TO SHOW HOW IT’S DONE) AND THE LAST ANIMAL (THE LAMB OF GOD).
God wants a relationship with ALL OF HIS CREATION, not just SOME. But your doctrine LIMITS HIS RELATIONSHIP TO A SELECT FEW….CHOSEN!
THAT makes NO SENSE from my 20 years plus of studying the WORD OF GOD!
Ed Chapman
jtleosala, and ET ALL.
In the KJV, the only place the word “regeneration” is in, is:
Matthew 19:28
And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.
and
Titus 3:5
Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;
——————————————————-
And in BOTH cases, the people that is being discussed, is…none other than Jews only.
The Jews only are the ones who God blinded from the beginning. Careful reading of Titus shows that Paul is discussing the Jews, thru and thru that book. They are the ones who are the Elect of God. They are the ones who hold the Oracles of God. They are the ones who are a light to the Gentiles.
I know, Calvinists think that they are a light to the Jews. Not true!
God will have mercy on those whom he blinded, that is, the Jews. At this time, they can’t come to Christ, until God unblinds them.
God blinded them for OUR SAKES. Their (JEW) blindness is NOT our (Gentile) blindness. Gentiles are not in the same category as the Jews are.
Gentiles do not get “regenerated”. ONLY the Jews do. Gentiles have NO NEED to be “regenerated”.
Ed Chapman
chapmaned24 writes, “For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation to all men,”
Titus 2:11 provides context, “For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation to all men,…” At the least, this means both Jew and gentile (to the Calvinist) and each and every person (to the non-Calvinist).
Then we read–
1. Remind them [those under the teaching of Titus] to be subject to rulers, to authorities, to be obedient, to be ready for every good deed,
2 …showing every consideration for all men.
4 But when the kindness of God our Savior and His love for mankind appeared,
5 He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit,
7 that being justified by His grace we might be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life.
8 …These things are good and profitable for men.
Paul’s use of the term, “men,” is generic and refers to both Jews and gentiles as this is Paul’s concern in his letters – that salvation is for the gentile and not just the Jew.
rhutchin,
STOP!
Step back and be objective, would you please!
You really NEED to STUDY a LOT MORE!
Peter addresses JEWS ONLY. Paul addresses JEWS ONLY in some of his epistles. Titus is ONE OF THEM.
Whoever wrote the book of Hebrews addresses JEWS ONLY.
Jews are NOT the same as Gentiles in MANY MANY MANY WAYS.
You need to SEPARATE the two and see God works with Jews DIFFERENTLY than he does with Gentiles.
You come to this from a Calvinist standpoint, and I know how much LOVE Calvinists have for the Jews, believe me!
You have NO IDEA OR CLUE! But you think you KNOW IT ALL!
Ed Chapman
chapmaned24 writes, “Peter addresses JEWS ONLY. Paul addresses JEWS ONLY in some of his epistles. Titus is ONE OF THEM.”
That’s fine as that is your personal opinion. All you need to do now is show from the Scriptures that your opinions are more than just opinion – i.e., demonstrate that the Scriptures are saying what you want them to say and where they say such things. Start with Titus 3.
It is NOT my personal opinion. By you saying that it is my personal opinion, that shows your IGNORANCE of Scritpure.
chapmaned24 writes, ” By you saying that it is my personal opinion, that shows your IGNORANCE of Scritpure.’
Then show how the Scripture verifies your opinions – this you have not done. Your comments rarely, rarely appeal to Scripture to prove what you say and then often seem to be cited without any real purpose.
rhutchin said to me,
” Start with Titus 3.”
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL. rhutchin, you are blind as a bat!
By rhutchin stating that, it shows that he is NOT READING THE BLOG COMMENTS, because I have explained Titus 3…already! duh!
Ed Chapman
chapmaned 24 writes, “it shows that he is NOT READING THE BLOG COMMENTS, because I have explained Titus 3…already! duh!”
Let’s see. You appear to have made two unique comments.
!. Careful reading of Titus shows that Paul is discussing the Jews, thru and thru that book.
2. Gentiles have NEVER DONE “works of righteousness”
The first comment is your personal opinion that you don’t explain any further. The second is a nice comment but then you don’t explain what it has to do with Titus 3. Paul writes, “…when the kindness of God our Savior and His love for mankind appeared, He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness,” and here uses a word that refers to God’s love for man (with no specific reference to the Jew). You ignore this. In the end, you end up explaining nothing about Titus 3, advancing not even a simple analysis of the verses in question. Your analysis basically encompasses little more than your personal opinion.
jtleosala, and ET ALL,
Furthermore,
Titus 3:5
Not by works of righteousness which we have done…
Gentiles have NEVER DONE “works of righteousness”
Works of Righteousness is being obedient to the law of Moses, and Gentiles have never been under the law of Moses. Gentiles have never tried being righteous under the Law of Moses…well, except for “legalists”.
The Law is our SCHOOLMASTER to BRING US TO CHRIST, according to Galatians, but Gentiles were never under it to begin with.
For Gentiles, the law shows how dirty we are, and that we need to repent, but we never “done” works of righteousness.
That is just ONE CLUE of many in the book of Titus that shows that Paul was discussing Jews only.
Again, Abraham never had the Law of Moses, so he, too, never did works of righteousness, either.
Works of righteousness is, or equals, self righteousness of the law [of Moses], earning your way to eternal life.
In today’s Christianity, especially the reform folks, the so-called “leaders” preach that we Gentiles have done works of righteousness, when we have never fell under the law to begin with.
Ed Chapman
Ed Cahpman wrote this one below:
“The good news, or gospel, is within the Word of God, and IN the word of God is also BAD NEWS!”
“YOU are responsible for YOUR salvation, NOT GOD. God provides a WAY for salvation, and it is UP TO YOU to grab it, not God.”
———- Here’s My Response ————-
1. What are those bad news in the word of God? Can you name them here for clarifications to the readers of SOT 101.com ?
2. How can a person who is spiritually dead and is alienated from God be able to grab the offer? Jesus said: Anyone who is disconnected to the True Vine can do nothing? – Do you deny this statement of Jesus Christ? Are you claiming here that the spiritually dead man can “pull the rabbit out of the hat” by himself? Where can you find this in scriptures?… that man can grab it… without any Divine intervention?
3. Can anyone be able to grab it even if it was not legitimately intended for him? …. even if God the Father does not draw them to Jesus Christ? – Do you deny the statement of Jesus Christ in John 6:44, 65?
Chapman,
Nice try. You will soon learn by now that Calvinists are balancing their whole fatalist philosophy on a few verses (out of context). You see the proof of this with their constant reliance of John 6:44 (alternate interpretations in context have been offered many times here). Any day that someone offers long, in-context, passages that make no sense in Calvinism, they just repeat “Romans 9!” or “John 6:44!”
But, I have never seen anyone do what JTL does…. put so much weight on Jesus’ words in John 15, repeatedly saying “Anyone who is disconnected to the True Vine can do nothing?” I really dont see other Calvinists do this. It is just bad exegesis.
First of all Christ is talking to his disciples.
Secondly, He immediately uses imagery “I am a vine” “My father is a gardener”. This is always a sign that an image is being created and words are not being used literally or to establish doctrine.
Thirdly, He tells them they must remain in Him about 10 times (TEN TIMES!). This “remaining in Him” is an active verb (like staying in the house for the Israelites at Passover). It was said to those who are already connected to the vine. Notice how JTL never quotes anything else of the passage like “If you keep my commands, you will remain in my love.”
Fourthly, it is horrible Biblical interpretation to take one phrase of Christ (out of context) and then base a whole philosophy on it. We could do this (and create problems) with so many other statement of Christ, such as:
—You must hate your parents.
—You must carry your cross.
—Be one like I and the father are one.
—I am come to set sons against their father, and the daughters against her mothers
—Follow me; and let the dead bury their dead. Matthew 8:21-22, Luke 9:59-62
—If your hand or your foot causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it away.
To take one phrase from Christ (intended for a specific audience) (out of context) and repeat it over and over as if it is some kind of superior phrase that overrides the rest of the Bible shows a lack of understanding.
I hope JTL stops taking out of context that “connected to the vine” verse to “prove” that people are too-dead to hear Christ’s loving, caring voice when He says “Come to me all who labor and are heavy laden and I will give you rest.”
FOH,
Agreed. In this thread alone “No one can…” has been stated/repeated a number of times.
In the four gospels, we read Jesus is speaking/explaining the word to His disciples (of which Judas was one of them). We have to remember that these disciples were not only Jews, but Galilaeans (Acts 2:7), from the territory of the former Northern Kingdom.
Matthew 10: 5-7 (NKJV)…
These twelve Jesus sent out and commanded them, saying: “Do not go into the way of the Gentiles, and do not enter a city of the Samaritans. But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. And as you go, preach, saying, ‘The kingdom of heaven is at hand.’
Jesus’ earthly ministry was intended only for “the Lost Sheep of the House of Israel” (Matthew 10:6, Matthew 15:24). What about the Gentiles? What about the House of Judah?
Matthew 1:21 (NKJV)….
And she will bring forth a Son, and you shall call His name JESUS, for He will save His people from their sins.”
“See!?!” cries the Calvinist, “He came to save His people, His Elect, from their sins. He didn’t come to save the non-elect!”
And the serpent said “you will not surely die” (Genesis 3:4).
But who were/are His people?
Luke 1:67-80 (NKJV)….
Now his father Zacharias was filled with the Holy Spirit (so he is speaking thru divine inspiration), and prophesied, saying: “Blessed is the Lord God of (the Gentiles? No, but….) Israel, For He has visited and redeemed His people, And has raised up a horn of salvation for us (the people of Israel) In the house of His servant David, As He spoke by the mouth of His holy prophets, Who have been since the world began, That we (the people of Israel) should be saved from our enemies And from the hand of all who hate us, To perform the mercy promised to our fathers (Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob) And to remember His holy covenant, The oath which He swore to our father Abraham: To grant us that we, Being delivered from the hand of our enemies, Might serve Him without fear, In holiness and righteousness before Him all the days of our life. “And you, child, will be called the prophet of the Highest; For you will go before the face of the Lord to prepare His ways, To give knowledge of salvation to His people (Israel) By the remission of their sins, Through the tender mercy of our God, With which the Dayspring from on high has visited us; To give light to those who sit in darkness and the shadow of death, To guide our feet into the way of peace.” So the child grew and became strong in spirit, and was in the deserts till the day of his manifestation to (who?) Israel.
“Yeah” says the Calvinist, “but ‘no one can…’”
Phillip and FOH,
Yes, Calvinists have their PET verses, and they run their whole doctrine on those select verses. It’s always much better to read the whole book, like children can read Harry Potter. But ya gotta read it without presuppositions. Both actually and spiritually, and I’ve learned that you can’t learn the spiritual using expository preaching. But many in the reform does expository exclusively.
If you read the Hebrew scriptures by using expository, how would you know that Jesus is the promised seed? How would you know that Jesus would be dead for 3 days and 3 nights? How would you know that Jesus would be God? Expository?
Calvinists do not know how to find the spiritual. They are carnally minded.
Ed Chapman
chapmaned24 writes, “Yes, Calvinists have their PET verses,…ya gotta read it without presuppositions. ”
Calvinist presuppositions are derived from the “PET” verses. Scripture is truth and the verses used by Calvinists are truth. Non-Calvinists choose to ignore those truths.
phillip writes, ““Yeah” says the Calvinist, “but ‘no one can…’”
Calvinists seem prone to quote Simeon in Luke 2,
25 …there was a man in Jerusalem called Simeon, who was righteous and devout. He was waiting for the consolation of Israel, and the Holy Spirit was upon him.
26 It had been revealed to him by the Holy Spirit that he would not die before he had seen the Lord’s Christ.
27 Moved by the Spirit, he went into the temple courts. When the parents brought in the child Jesus to do for him what the custom of the Law required,
28 Simeon took him in his arms and praised God, saying:
29 “Sovereign Lord, as you have promised, you now dismiss your servant in peace.
30 For my eyes have seen your salvation,
31 which you have prepared in the sight of all people,
32 a light for revelation to the Gentiles and for glory to your people Israel.
But, you already knew that.
FOH writes, “John 6:44 (alternate interpretations in context have been offered many times here).”
Maybe you can provide summaries of those alternative interpretations. I only recall Brian Wagner’s attempt and his was not an interpretation but an addition to the text – making it, “No one can come to Me, unless the Father who sent Me draws him; [so God draws each and every person and for those who choose salvation, Jesus says] I will raise him up on the last day.” Perhaps, you have been studying under br.d too long and have adopted his penchant for imaginative claims.
Jtleosala,
1. You don’t know what the BAD news is, and you are a preacher? Tisk, tisk! Shame on you.
2. I deny your interpretation.
3. Romans 5:13, Romans 2:14-16.
Jtleosala,
2. Life comes before death, Romans 7. Death comes at the KNOWLEDGE of sin. That knowledge is found in Romans 3:20. Gentiles didn’t have the law. Adam got knowledge from…what was the name of that tree again? I forgot. Read Romans 4, where no law is, there is no transgression. Then revisit Romans 5:13 again.
1 Cor 15:56, the strength of sin is the law. 1 John 3:4, sin is the transgression of the law. Romans 3:20, the law is the knowledge of sin. Without knowledge, you are alive. Without knowledge, you are not dead in your trespasses and sin. Romans 7.
Hi Chapman
I wanted to ask what you thought of the following:
Romans 6:23 KJV — For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
Rom5:12¶Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:
13(For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.
14Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam’s transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.
In particular vs14…nevertheless etc.
From what I see of this, Paul is teaching that though humanity didn’t disobey like Adam (a direct commandment), men (all men) are still experiencing death. Showing/proving that all men are sinners though they didn’t disobey like Adam. For if they were not sinners they wouldn’t die.
Now I don’t think men are born dead ie unable to respond to God, even looking at Adam, Abel, Cain all were communicating with God and all were being expected to respond. But all are under the sentence of Death.
Romans 2:
11For there is no respect of persons with God.
12¶For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law
14For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:
15Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;)
16In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel.
26Therefore if the uncircumcision keep the righteousness of the law, shall not his uncircumcision be counted for circumcision?
28For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh
29But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God
So it seems to me that the Gentiles have the Law written in their hearts, and therefore are equally accountable, with regards ” the law is the knowledge of sin , and without law sin not inputted”
I see Death in.scripture as not Dead in spirit so can’t hear /choose God etc but that We are all under the DEATH sentence which the breaking of the law demands, when its not obeyed, because the wage of sin is Death (as in death sentence). The law cannot save because it does not give power to obey. It can only say, this is the law, obey it, break it, and your wage/reward will be death (physically and spiritually ie eternal seperation @point of physical death if one had not repented and put their Faith in Christ) in order to receive the end of their Faith, the salvation of their soul.
Whilst still physically alive, sin has and is more and more separating one from God (death sentence). And the irreversible culmination will occur at the 2nd death.
Just like those who have been given the Gift of life ie had the death sentence reversed through Faith in Christ, are walking in life now but will at the point of death irreversibly receive Life Eternally @ the resurrection.
Whilst on this side of eternity God reveals Himself to sinners and they have they ability whilst under the DEATH Sentence to respond and opt out (as it were) through a Faith based response to The Good news offered in Christ through His Work Alone on the Cross. (ie redemption)
I think a lot of the law scriptures yes are aimed at the Jews yes, but with the aim of getting the Jews to realise that their written Law will not save them though they have been given the fullest version of it and the promises etc. Paul seems to me to be trying to get them to see they are sinners even like the gentiles. As oppose Paul teaching/ saying that only Jews under the Law and not Gentiles.
When I say law I exclude the shadows in the law, ceremonial laws etc. Which the Gentiles couldn’t practice since they were not given the Book of the Law.
I mean the moral law, which I believe scripture teaches we are all under. The gentiles have it in in their hearts. The Jews have both, plus the promises, plus the shadows that pointed to the Messiah, Plus the call to be the ones whom the messiah would come through, plus the call to be and example to the other nations of what righteous living through knowing Yahweh looked like.
Deut :5 Behold, I have taught you statutes and judgments, even as the LORD my God commanded me, that ye should do so in the land whither ye go to possess it.
6 Keep therefore and do them; for this is your wisdom and your understanding in the sight of the nations, which shall hear all these statutes, and say, Surely this great nation is a wise and understanding people.
7 For what nation is there so great, who hath God so nigh unto them, as the LORD our God is in all things that we call upon him for?8 And what nation is there so great, that hath statutes and judgments so righteous as all this law, which I set before you this day?
The Gentiles have none of the above, nor are called to this call.
However they did have the Law written in their hearts, causing them to be worthy of death though they had not been directly disobedient to The Law or A Commandment” like Adam .
Rom7:
9For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died.
10And the commandment, which was ordained to life, I found to be unto death.
11For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it slew me.
12Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good.
Sorry about the length.
3¶Was then that which is good made death unto me? God forbid. But sin, that it might appear sin, working death in me by that which is good; that sin by the commandment might become exceeding sinful
I think yes, speaking to the Jews, but its application is to anyone relying on their own righteousness (the Jews or the Gentiles : via the law in their hearts)
The only ones to whom sin is not imputed though they sin, are the innocent (eg children to the degree that they are not connected to/ recognise the realisation of law breaking towards God in their hearts) (whatever age that happens) / in ability to comprehend the gospel, in a state of innocence they are covered by the blood, if they die young / in that state @ death (the wages of sin being the physical death, but Christ blood covers them with regards Second death, because sin though it existed wasn’t imputed)
—————————-
Rom8
1¶There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.
2For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.
3For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:
I believe this whole chapter is contrasting walking in the flesh (which includes those seeking righteousness through obedience to the law) with those who are walking in the Spirit (which starts with Faith in Christ)
14For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God. [As oppose to physical Jews/ law keepers, and carnal ones (carnality being a by product of not being able to keep the law) ]
Sorry for the length
Rgds In Christ
Clare
Hey there Clare,
That was a mouthful of study you laid outfit me, and I have a simple answer, but I gotta wait til I get home from work. Seems tho we agree in many things, I hope, tho. But this answer of mine will also show why I don’t believe in what the Catholics call, “Original Sin”. Give me a couple hours.
chapmaned24 writes, “I don’t believe in what the Catholics call, “Original Sin”.”
If you believe that people die because Adam sinned or that childbirth is painful for women, then you believe in original sin. Id you believe that people do not die and childbirth is a piece of cake, then you don’t believe in original sin.
That is not the criteria behind original sin. Study what original so really is.
The following explains:
“Traditionally, the origin has been ascribed to the sin of the first man, Adam, who disobeyed God in eating the forbidden fruit (of knowledge of good and evil) and, in consequence, transmitted his sin and guilt by heredity to his descendants.”
I’m not guilt of the sin of Adam. Adam’s sin belongs to him alone.
I die because Adam did not obtain eternal life.
And he could not obtain eternal life because he GOT KNOWLEDGE OF GOOD AND EVIL, in other words, he got knowledge of HIS OWN SINS.
GOD DID NOT WANT HIM TO HAVE KNOWLEDGE, GOD WANTEDADAM TO REMAIN IGNORANT OF SIN.
SATAN WANTED ADAM TO BE AS SMART AS HE IS.
WE DO NOT INHERIT ADAMS GUILT.
WE INHERIT CARNAL NATURAL DEATH.
Ed Chapman
chapmaned24 writes, “I’m not guilt of the sin of Adam. Adam’s sin belongs to him alone.
I die because Adam did not obtain eternal life.”
Adam did not obtain eternal life because he sinned. Thus, you die because Adam sinned. You incur the penalty for Adam’s sin, so you are accounted as having committed Adam’s sin. Otherwise, why would you die?
rhutchin,
Would Adam have died if he ate of the tree of life after he are of the tree of KNOWLEDGE of good and evil?
Ed Chapman
chapmaned24 asks, “Would Adam have died if he ate of the tree of life after he are of the tree of KNOWLEDGE of good and evil?”
“…the LORD God said, “Behold, the man has become like one of Us, knowing good and evil; and now, lest he stretch out his hand, and take also from the tree of life, and eat, and live forever”– therefore the LORD God sent him out from the garden of Eden,…” (Genesis 3)
Genesis 3
22 And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:
Hi Chapman
Thank you for your responses
It’s very insightful. It particularly interests me because I had earlier this year, looking up death came up with the following. This message is in my thoughts and notes form, am coping and pasting. Please bear with it if my sentence are not complete
But I have written (update) where I have added more in light of your response.
I’ve also written up a lot, but am.going to send in parts as you did!
Part 1:
Adam made good, innocent, but mortal with intent that he should by choice (inspired by trust/obedience?) to become immortal by eating of the tree of life
1cor15:44…..There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.
45And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.
, and we shall be changed.
53………., and this mortal must put on immortality
The reason why am thinking Adam was made mortal was because, after the fall, God says to block the tree of life, lest he lives forever.
So it’s got me thinking that they must have been mortal…. though ability to live a physically long life.
But then the Q is :…would they have died if they ate neither tree?
Or maybe that is a pointless question because they would have certainly eaten the tree before they had opportunity to physically die. Since after the fall they lived over 900years! Surely if still in eden, they would have made a choice to eat tree of life, then become perfect/immortal?
.
UPDATE: As I’ve been thinking on this, it occurs to me that, that Adam needed to have a mortal body (ie able to die) but that death (physical) would not occur unless he breaks the command to not eat.
Or He eats the tree of life. Ie for as long as he doesn’t eat of the tree he stays alive (but temptation is there) or if he had eaten of the tree of life first he would have been saved (from both types of death)
………………………………
The tree of life represented everlasting life… you can only eat it by Faith/Trust. God said:Of every tree you may eat)
But Adam went to get life from the wrong tree… because of unbelief inspired by the enemy.(Lie:God knows you will be like Him)
If they had eaten of the tree of life, maybe they wouldn’t have fallen for the deception…. because Faith(trust)/ Obedience/Christ/Life/Light was in them.
Would they have been like Jesus on earth, temptable but without sin. (Just as Satan came to Jesus, but He didn’t fall) And therefore go on to live forever?
Death could also be the absence of Light?… Earth was in a void state, also said to be in darkness. God spoke Light into it and then Life could then spring forth from there.
Life…. means a non corrupt Spirit, Soul and Body. Filled with light
Death means a corrupt/decaying Spirit, Soul and Body. Filled with darkness
Did Adam’s fall caused death because of sin’s entry leading to spiritual decaying, that decay being a losing of light,
as oppose to a loss of existence? Eg killed/dead/without life(breath)
As the light lessens, leads to total darkness. That total darkness materialises when one dies and our bodies/ senses can no longer be used to discern light. (Spirit to Soul to body)
Or sin has blinded our hearts so that it is hardened and less able to receive light, if it rejects gospel and judicial hardening occurs, (giving over), therefore then no longer able to receive light, so in physical death condition leads to 2nd death which is Permanent darkness, loss of access to everliving life/light
The spirit can be in darkness, loss of light, not loss of existence…. ie ceasing to exist.
So after the Fall man was not separated from God, but from access to immortality, and this condition inturn (because of the injection of sin ) lead to the immediate work of darkness/dimming to start occurring
John1:4In him was life; and THE LIFE WAS THE LIGHT OF MEN.
5And the light shineth in darkness;
That] was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world. [Jhn 1:9 KJV
EPh2:1Dead in transgression, means without everliving life, sentenced to that position. No access to the tree of life. We also do not know our way back to the tree.
Everliving life now means to be vs12 with Christ. CHRIST IS represented in THE TREE OF LIFE that Adam and Transgressors are denied access to in their disobedient/ corrupt state.
But eph2:4 God has found a way for trangressors to have access to the tree of life, ie the eternal life which is in Christ and is NOT by the Law (the commandment that if kept brings life) Rom7:10 because of Sin vs11
Part2 following..
Clare,
Long time no hear from!
OK, so, let’s get started.
Your Part 1:
I agreed with EVERYTHING you said, up till ya got to your “UPDATE”…then ya started losing me.
I was so glad that you had mentioned 1 Cor 15 reference, because it was 1 Corinthians 15:36-58 that revealed to me a LOT of things regarding LIFE, and that was just the BEGINNING, and I’ve got a whole lot more since then, too…about LIFE.
3 things consist of a fire. What are they? HEAT, FUEL, OXYGEN. Remove just ONE of those elements, it’s no longer a fire.
3 things consist of life. What are they? 1 Thessalonians 5:23, spirit, soul, body. Remove the body, it’s no longer LIFE.
What is spiritual life for those NOW living in a body that dies? Easy…OUR body, OUR soul, OUR spirit, PLUS God’s spirit in our dying body. Spiritual death is God departing your dying body.
1 Corinthians 15 is a discussion of the resurrected body, which is BACK TO LIFE AGAIN, but it gives MUCH MUCH MUCH insight.
I love how Paul begins his explanation in verse 36, “THOU FOOL, that which thou sowest is not quickened, except it die:
OK, simple English here. Sowest is PLANT. Quickened is MADE ALIVE.
Seeds…they are a spiritual picture of ETERNAL spirits. Plant a Seed (Spirit) IN DIRT (BODY) and Adam became a “LIVING” SOUL (mind).
Paul is using FARM VERBAGE HERE. Grain, wheat, other grain, indicating a BODY.
A resurrected body is an immortal body for the righteous. (The unrighteous resurrected bodies will die again, hence, another mortal body for them).
A resurrected body, according to 1 Corinthinans 15 is a SPIRITUAL BODY. Now look at this:
Verse 46
Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual.
So to anser the question about the mortality or immortality of Adam, it is CLEAR that Adam began his existence on this planet in a mortal body, the NATURAL body. After the natural body dies, THEN comes the spiritual body, the body that does not die, immortality.
So, look at this list, then I will do a table of the verses:
42 It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption:
43 It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power:
44 It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.
Planted in | Raised in
————————-|——————————————————–
Corruption | Incorruption
Dishonor | Glory
Weakness | Power
Natural Body (mortal) | Spiritual Body (Immortality
Now, read all of 1 Corinthians 15:36-….I would say, 56. Pay close attention to THAT VERSE. But mostly verse 50, that flesh and BLOOD cannot inherit the Kingdom of God. Flesh and BLOOD. According to scripture, the life of the body is in the blood. Not so with a SPIRITUAL BODY that will never die.
Bottom line, Adam was mortal, and was gonna die a NATURAL death anyway, NO MATTER WHAT HE DID in regards to the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil.
The ONLY way he could have lived forever, whether in a fallen state or not, was to have eaten of the tree of life. God blocked that tree of life after the fall, LEST HE EAT OF IT AND LIVE FOREVER IN A FALLEN STATE.
OK, so, now, moving on to what you said:
“The tree of life represented everlasting life… you can only eat it by Faith/Trust. God said:Of every tree you may eat)
But Adam went to get life from the wrong tree… because of unbelief inspired by the enemy.(Lie:God knows you will be like Him)
If they had eaten of the tree of life, maybe they wouldn’t have fallen for the deception…. because Faith(trust)/ Obedience/Christ/Life/Light was in them. ”
Where did God tell them about the Tree of Life? He only told them which tree not to eat from, and you are right, that he did indeed tell him to eat of any tree he wanted, just not that one. But he never told them HOW to get eternal life. Eternal life was never brought up as a subject to Adam.
Anyway, I gotta wait til tomorrow night to get to your other comments, but this is A GREAT discussion, cuz i see that YOU GET IT. You are on the RIGHT TRACK. And I gotta say, I don’t see many people who reference 1 Corinthians 15 when discussing this topic, and it is REFRESHING to see that you do, because I did LONG AGO.
Lot’s of stuff to uncover in 1 Cor 15 that can be taken back to all sorts of passages, too.
So, until tomorrow night…
Ed Chapma
Hi Chapman,
Lol, sorry about confusion, ref UPDATE.
But I’ll summarise
I will agree then that Adam had a mortal body. But only with the potential to die. That potential is there because it gives opportunity for God’s consequence of physical death to happen.
But there are two ways for Adam to seal his state, ie become immortal. Eat the tree of Life, which was shown him.
Genesis 2:9 KJV — And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.
16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die
In reading this, I believe God shows him all the trees (including the tree of Life) and tells him what to eat, and what to not eat (and why@ tree of knowledge).
So Adam can live forever either by avoiding the tree of knowledge (by NOT disobeying the command/law).
Or He can live forever by eating the tree of life.
The devil lies to them that the tree of knowledge will give them.everything ( that God had already promised them! in the other trees) and said they would be like God.
So the devil tempts them.to lust, and they are blinded that (good for food, pleasant to the eyes etc are already available in the other trees)
Adam sins by direct and wilful disobedience as oppose eve whom was deceived. Adam is the one who acted out of unbelief and trusted in self (works) instead of trusting God’s Word…(Faith)
This leads to physical death and eventually spiritual death (second death) Because the wages of sin is death.
Now the reason why I stick to physical death. Is because there’s no where in scripture as far as I can see that physical death is considered ok. It always brings a mourning,
Genesis 21:16 KJV — And she went, and sat her down over against him a good way off, as it were a bowshot: for she said, LET ME NOT SEE THE DEATH OF the child. And she sat over against him, and lift up her voice, and wept. (THIS IS THE FEELING WE ALL.HAVE WHEN ANYONE DIES
its a shock to our inner senses no.matter how old someone is. There’s this hope that they don’t die. Even at a 100 it still a shock and sad one goes.
Revelation 21:4 KJV — And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.
Also if Adam had.died in Eden without eating tree of life would Eden be full.of graves? That doesn’t.seem.that everything would be “good” as God declared His initial creation to be.
Now: I was considering what you said:
Planted in | Raised in
————————-|——————————————————–
Corruption | Incorruption
Dishonor | Glory
Weakness | Power
Natural Body (mortal) | Spiritual Body (Immortality
Now, read all of 1 Corinthians 15:36-….I would say, 56. Pay close attention to THAT VERSE. But mostly verse 50, that flesh and BLOOD cannot inherit the Kingdom of God.
Could this be Paul talking from this side of Eden. In that our mortal body now inevitably physically dies.
The other thing is … part of our salvation is the joy of a physical bodily resurrection, to receives a body that doesn’t die. If Adam had a body that inevitably dies (rather than a body that can.stay alive but dies only if sin), then this part of our salvation has no real joy cause it was going to happen.
But the scriptures says about physical Death :
Revelation 20:14 KJV — And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.
If death is normal, why is it being thrown into hell.
Revelation 6:8 KJV — And I looked, and behold a pale horse: and his name that sat on him was Death, and Hell followed with him. And power was given unto them over the fourth part of the earth, to kill with sword, and with hunger, and with death, and with the beasts of the earth.
Revelation 1:18 KJV — I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death.
Hebrews 11:5 KJV — By faith Enoch was translated that he should not see death; and was not found, because God had translated him: for before his translation he had this testimony, that he pleased God.
(It seems like its a blessing not to Die)..
Also we can still get a spiritual body without death, through The Rapture. And many of would rather be raptured rather than experience death, because death is not natural/nice
2 Timothy 1:10 KJV — But is now made manifest by the appearing of our Saviour Jesus Christ, who hath abolished death, and hath brought life and immortality to light through the gospel:
Philippians 2:27 KJV — For indeed he was sick nigh unto death: but God had mercy on him; and not on him only, but on me also, lest I should have SORROW UPON SORROW.
So I’ve come to.believe.after further thought from initial notes that I sent, that physical death came through sin. Even though Adam had a mortal body I believe he would have stayed alive if as I said at the beginning he had kept from the tree of knowledge. Or had eaten the Tree of life leading to immutable immortality.
Whereas the 1st option would always leave him open to satan’s temptation and a fall and immutable death, even after long life. Except that….
Eph2:
.4 But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us,5 Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved;)
Because we do/have sinned prior to salvation, physical death still comes, but for Christians we consider it sleep and do not sorrow as much because we wil rise from death and live on without any opportunity to die again, that’s part of the joy.
Just an afterthought as am writing, if Adam died naturally then there would have been some tears in the garden of Eden
Ps did you get my other messages Part2 to 5
I think and another called Finally. ( I share thoughts on original sin and other topics)
Clare,
I haven’t had much time to dissect your writings, but I will…I promise. I had forgotten about New Years Eve/Day, and here and there have been responding to others on short matters today.
However, in this, I will address something that you said now…
You had said:
“I will agree then that Adam had a mortal body.”
But then you said:
“But only with the potential to die.” adding, “So Adam can live forever either by avoiding the tree of knowledge (by NOT disobeying the command/law).”
My response:
That is extremely contradictory, Clare!
Potential by avoiding the tree of knowledge? That’s not how I read verse 22.
Genesis 3:22
And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:
He COULD HAVE lived forever in a FALLEN STATE! But God blocked access to the tree of life to avoid THAT potential.
Ed Chapman
Hi
Thanks for reply, no problem@no time 🙂
With regards contradiction, am going from here
Gen 2:17 (KJV) — But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt SURELY die.
I include physical death and eternal death(if no grace). God is saying not just die, but SURELY die. Which includes no access to the tree of life, which was still accessible, but now wouldn’t be in order to ensure death.
I’ve heard it said that the original wording is dying you will die. Taking that to be accurate, I take it as one death leading to the other, all triggered off by eating of the wrong tree.
Adam’s body had to be mortal to allow the punishment to be doable, if he failed. He needed the tree of Life to carrying on living in his fallen state. Prior to that he needed to either eat the tree of life (making death impossible). Or stay alive by just relying on avoiding disobedience but that option leaves him vulnerable to fall.
Just like the law says if you keep it in full, you don’t die. But breaking one commandment, sentences us to death. If we have eternal life we get to live forever though we die (this is because of sin in the body) we have inherited a weak and dying body. Prior to the fall, he had a strong and healthy good body which need not die.
Wondering what others think? Brian? 🙂
Clare,
I’m establishing that genesis 2 is not not not not discussing physical death at all. Surely or not.
I’m establishing that he was gonna die a physical death no matter what.
I’m establishing that even if he obeyed God by not eating of the tree of KNOWLEDGE of good and evil, he would have died a physical death anyway.
The only way to live forever was to eat of the tree of life.
He was never told how to gain eternal life. He was never told about the tree of life. He was never told what would happen if he ate of the tree of life. Not a single word was spoken by God to Adam about any such thing as a tree of life.
The only death spoken of in Genesis 2 is “SPIRITUAL DEATH”, aka separation from God. And that separation needs a sacrifice, for which God shed the blood of an animal that resumed the relationship.
physical death in Genesis was not the subject. He was gonna die anyway, unless he ate of the tree of life.
The mere fact that he could have eternal life in a fallen state negates out your premise, because at that point, he would not have died, let alone Shirlie, um, I mean, surely.
Ed Chapman
Hi
Am proposing another view/ thinking that the death referred to is both . And here’s more reasons why
Change of Terms(as more accurate)
Natural Body vs Spiritual body
I’ll start with a quote I came across just yesterday, which refined my thoughts as in my previous messages I had made mention of the rapture and not needing to die. So when I read the below quote I changed the terms (from mortal body to natural body as that’s what Paul called it)
“Adam before the fall was not doomed to die. Yet, Adam before the fall also did not have the consummated/glorified body, the fullness of the living forever tied to the tree of life. Thus, Adam before the fall was still awaiting confirmation in eternal life.
Adam, if he had obeyed, would have attained to the consummated/glorified body without having to pass through death. The Bible, especially Paul in 1 Corinthians 15, makes it clear that Adam’s body would have been changed at some point, but the details of how and when are not revealed”
ME:
Romans 8:2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.
Point being that, with the tree of knowledge stood for the law of sin and death. Adam didn’t have immortality (irreversible life which needs a glorified body)… he had law based life, which kept him alive so long as no sin.
An alternative view I came across is that he had immortality prior, but lost it after sin/fall. God had to block tree of life in order to stop immortality being reinstated.
I am more lenient to natural body that was kept alive via the Law. But because natural it could physically die.
A Spiritual body cannot die. But can only be attained by Faith in/Partaking in Christ aka Tree of Life .
If Adam had Christ in Him, he would have attained the spiritual body and with LIGHT in him, he wouldn’t have eaten/ have disobeyed God. Which is a work of unbelief.
Sin (via the devil) uses the Law to get its way
Rom7:11For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it slew me.
Romans 10:5 KJV — For Moses describeth the righteousness which is of the law, That the man which doeth those things shall live by them. (I.include any Law, including law of conscience)
Galatians 3:11 KJV — But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith. (I.include any Law, including law of conscience)
And am coming to believe that these principles are divine principle and started/began in the Garden of Eden.
Adam & Eve as with every man have to be Justified by Faith, in order to be True Sons. And that test also applied to Adam, just like for us. The difference being that Adam had a better vantage point….he was not separated from God by sin, He had also seen God and was without excuse.
This lines up with the character of God in his dealings with man…. sin is imputed in those who know God. This might be why sin was not imputed to Eve(?) (though she sinned) in that the commandment was not directly to her.
Deuteronomy 11:2 KJV — And know ye this day: for I speak not with your children which have not known, and which have not seen the chastisement of the LORD your God, his greatness, his mighty hand, and his stretched out arm,
Numbers 14:
20 And the LORD said, I have pardoned according to thy word:21 BUT AS TRULY AS I LIVE, all the earth shall be filled with the glory of the LORD.22 BECAUSE ALL THOSE MEN WHICH HAVE SEEN MY GLORY, AND MY MIRACLES, which I did in Egypt and in the wilderness, and have tempted me now these ten times, and HAVE NOT HEARKENED TO MY VOICE;23 SURELY THEY SHALL NOT SEE THE LAND which I sware unto their fathers, neither shall any of them that provoked me see it:24 BUT MY SERVANT Caleb, BECAUSE HE HAD ANOTHER SPIRIT WITH HIM, AND HATH FOLLOWED ME FULLY,
This principle was also why Jesus was upset with unbelieving Jews in His time, they had seen His works and God with Isreal in their time, and God with Pharaoh in his time
Romans 2:
7To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life:
8But unto them that are contentious, and DO NOT OBEY THE TRUTH, BUT OBEY UNRIGHTEOUNESS, indignation and wrath,
9Tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile;
I think this principle/test is in the Garden… and started with Adam 1st
I DON’T believe in Original Sin I mentioned why in other (part) messages primary because God says:
Deut24:16
The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin.
Ezekiel 18:20
20The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.
And because Romans 5:12 KJV — Wherefore, as by one man SIN ENTERED into the world, and DEATH BY SIN; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:
This tells me that Adam passed on a sin nature… instead of the pure nature he had before the fall. Then sin (personal sin which is inevitable) leads to our personal physical death sentence. But until sin is imputed, you do not receive eternal death, because that is dependent on breaking the Law of Faith (ie unbelief at the revelation of God/the gospel, the types of gospel /revelations of Himself through other means before Christ, )
We differ slightly on cause of physical death, I say sin, you say natural
I say eternal death only imputed by disobedience to (revelation ) knowledge of God, which grants opportunity to do good(Faith) or bad (unbelief) ie disobedience to The Truth or The Light. I refer to Adam and other scriptures following
You say only eternal death is imputed from personal knowledge of sin. You refer to Adam as the example and say that’s the pattern for every man following.
I say both deaths were imputed by disobedience by Adam but his eternal death was covered by his faith in the blood sacrifice and the promise of the messiah represented in:
Genesis 3:15 KJV — And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.
Both views allow for original sin NOT TO BE imputed, and the “ignorant” aka “innocent” though sinned to not have sins imputed, ie not have eternal death, though they die physically.
Romans 6:23 KJV — For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
I say the wage for sin is physical and eternal death… but Gods gift releases us from eternal death (for those with knowledge good’& evil (based on the law of Faith & unbelief)
You say the wage only applies to eternal death only to those with (personal) knowledge of good and evil according to transgression of the LAW (of Moses) since physical death is not a product of sin.
I’ll meet you halfway too(smile) and say that you’re view is plausible and has merit as well, and may well be the accurate one. Though I stick to mine for now 🙂
Sorry for length, I intended to write less than this!
Clare,
Hey, buddy. I think you are going way overboard here.
I used to be happy that you had referenced 1 Corinthians 15 before. But you’ve skewed over it, and seemed to have forgotten about it.
When you use the word, “confirmation”, kinda sounds a little too Catholic.
Read 1 Corinthians 15:35 – end of chapter again. You will see that a natural body comes first, and that body is planted… pay attention to the words planted and raised. Some say sow, or sowest. Natural bodies die.
Adam did not begin with an eternal body, then lost it.
He began with a mortal body and never gained, or obtained eternal life.
P.S.
You don’t need all those adjectives to describe an immortal body, i.e., glorified, consummated, etc. Lol.
1 Cor 15 plainly states that what came first is a natural body… And verse 36 states that it dies.
God never gave a commandment to Adam to eat of the tree of life.
God never told him anything about a tree of life.
Three only supernatural tree Adam knew about was the OTHER tree.
Ed Chapman
Lol @ confirmation (but do remember that the Catholics did not invent that word) 🙂
I did say in last message that I still believe in natural body:
So 1Corinthians 15, re read:
Observations, talking about physical death:
12¶Now if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead?
21For since BY MAN CAME DEATH, by man came also the resurrection of the dead.
22For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.
So physical death came because of Adam vs21.
My difficulty with the notion that physical death is natural pre fall, is because no where is death looked upon with that view in scripture. It always brings sorrow, even for a Christian who is encouraged by the resurrection of loved ones unto life.
Death post fall, is an expected cycle of life because our natural body is a weak/corrupt and decaying one, including the soul dwelling in it. This type of natural body, according to Rom7 is what Adam handed down, a returning to the dust.
The natural body pre the fall was made of dust, and not glorified/spiritual body,
And I’ve mentioned how it was sustained, (the law) and what it needed to be sustained irreversibly, that is the tree of life, so as to attain a glorified body that could not die.
Same chapter, Physical death is an enemy:
26The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death.
35¶But some man will say, How are the dead raised up? and with what body do they come
44It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.
46¶Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual.
47The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven.
49And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly.
So Adam and we indeed! had/ have a natural body, the discussion is what brought physical death to it.
I say sin, you say life cycle.
I say post fall all of verses that……
42¶So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption:
43It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power:
…..apply to us, because we have indeed inherited a corrupt body from Adam after he sinned. Instead of a natural “good” body that is not naturally corrupt or weak/infirmed predestined (smile) to physical death
Physical death is part of the curse of sin is how am still seeing it, although Adam had a natural body, it was a good one that was kept alive by obedience to the law, but able to die if disobey the law.
Or kept alive by having a natural body transformed to heavenly/glorified body that can be granted or be clothed with immortality
That is why God had to stop them from eating the tree of life, because they would have a corrupt/wicked soul, in an everliving, glorified body. WHAT A HORROR.
The world would have got to the same state as Noahs days and no physical death.?
Part2 following…Does a natural body HAVE TO DIE..?
Clare, this is on response to yesterday’s comment. I’m behind the curve. I didn’t get home from work last night till about 7pm, and I get up about 3am to go to work. I’m at a pause at the moment.
My response to you however is in regards to 1 Cor 15:44.
Yes Adams body was in decay as soon as it was formed.
Notice a verse in 1 Cor 15 which states that flesh and blood can’t inherit the kingdom of God.
This earth is a temporary home. It was never intended to be eternal.
If you can see it, it’s temporal, not eternal.
This earth has been decaying since it was created.
Where is hell located?
In 1 Corinthians…i think chapter 4, it is stated, while we look not at what is seen, but at what is not seen, for what is seen is temporal, what is not seen is eternal.
Do you really think that this earth is what God intended for all humans to reside in for all eternity, with no one dying?
Where would they all live? High rise apartments as high as the tower of Babel?
Or Kansas?
This earth is not our home. It’s all gonna burn, and a new body will be formed for it, and hell will not be located in the heart of the earth anymore.
Demons were on this earth long before God put man on this earth.
Adams BODY is formed from dirt. Did Adam have blood in his body? Yes .
Flesh (dirt) and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God.
Everything has been decaying since it was created in a world we can see.
Can you see angels? You are a SPIRIT.
No one can see you, either.
All we can see is your body dirt body.
If you break your arm, that is your bones breaking and it hurts.
Can an eternal body have broken bones? Pain?
I submit that the natural body Adam had before the fall was decaying just like ours is.
Ed Chapman
” This earth has been decaying since it was I created.”
I think the earth has been decaying since the curse of sin entered it.
17¶And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: CURSED IS THE GROUND FOR THY SAKE; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;
18Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field;
If Adam hadn’t sinned, we would still be in the garden of Eden… on good/un cursed, non decaying earth. (IMO)
I see no reason why not.
19In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return
THIS RETURNING TO THE DUST, IS PART OF GOD’S JUDGMENT.
“Do you really think that this earth is what God intended for all humans to reside in for all eternity, with no one dying?”
…..yes… why not?
Gen1
27So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them
28And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over……..”
Gen2:15¶And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it.
God’s original plan before the fall, starting from the garden of Eden to extend to all the earth
but we lost Eden through the 1st Adam, but regained the same through 2nd Adam…. we will be living on the new EARTH.. an uncursed one. This plan ie the 2nd Earth would not have been necessary if Adam had maintained the 1st one. [Off course! God knew it would be necessary since He knew Adam would fall…] but.assuming Adam didn’t, we would still have the garden of Eden with us and its goodness continuing throughout the earth as man continued through Adam to fulfil vs28
I love! this verse:
2 Peter 3:13 KJV — Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.
I think the Earth here that Adam was made from, is the same here. But there will be no sin and therefore no decay.
I think it might be the Eden we lost.
Or Eden (where God walked with man) might represent the new Jerusalem (God coming to dwell amongst man). Emmanuel.
The tree of life wasn’t the only thing we lost but access into Eden. Or Eden being removed from the Earth(?)
Rev21
3 And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God.4 And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.
Part2
1Corinthians 15
51Behold, I shew you a mystery; WE SHALL NOT ALL SLEEP, BUT WE SHALL ALL BE CHANGED,
52In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.
53FOR THIS corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality.
54So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory.
55O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory?
56 The sting of death is sin; and the strength of sin is the law.
57But thanks be to God, which giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.
So The Natural Body doesn’t have to experience physical death to put on immortality. It just has be changed body, a Spiritual/ Heavenly body.
1thess
15 For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep.16 For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:17 THEN WE WHICH ARE ALIVE and remain SHALL BE CAUGHT UP together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air:
This is what it seems to me Adam missed out on by not taking The tree of life. A CHANGED Spiritual body which could be clothed with immortality. Or have immortality “confirmed” LOL
[ THIS IS IRRELEVANT UNPROVABLE OVERBOARD 🙂 CONJECTURE FOLLOWING]:
Then his children onwards would have been born with heavenly bodies, or maybe the same good/pure natural body he had, but he would immediately give them of the tree of life and they too would be changed.
Clare,
Continued…
Adam was with God in the garden, and spiritual death is separation.
Natural death is not separation from God. Spiritual death is.
Read Romans 7, and see when Paul was alive, and when Paul died
Please…Romans 7…alive, died.
Ed Chapman
Yes I agree that natural death is not separation from God… but it is those lead to it, if you’re not saved you’re not raised with a glorified body unto eternal life. The unbeliever retains their natural body and does not get to partake of eternal life, and receives the judgment after physical death, called the 2nd death.
I mentioned Rom7 in one of my parts message. I believe Paul was thinking he was alive until the law showed him he was dead all along. BY dead I mean the sentence of death was over him.
But sin, that IT MIGHT APPEAR SIN, WORKING DEATH IN ME by that which is good; that SIN BY the commandment MIGHT BECOME EXCEEDINGLY sinful.
[ THIS I think is linked to vs9&10 because the Law now shows him that he is not alive at all, he realises he is EXCEEDINGLY sinful. And that therefore/all the while he is not alive at all but is sentenced to Death! (ie death penalty not deadness ).
Clare,
But I’ll meet ya half way… Romans 5 is discussing physical death, not spiritual death. Genesis 2 is discussing spiritual death, not physical death.
Ed Chapman
Clare,
And it is for these reasons that I do not believe in the Catholic invented doctrine of “ORIGINAL SIN”, among other reasons, too, of course.
Ed Chapman
Clare,
Hey, just one more thing while my mind thinks about it.
John 4:24 states that God is a SPIRIT.
We are created in the image of God, right?
Now, as I mentioned before about what is LIFE, 1 Thessalonians 5:23, SPIRIT and SOUL and BODY.
We have a LIVING GOD. So states scripture. Time and time again, God talks about his own SOUL.
Does God have a BODY? He has to if he’s “LIVING”. I’m making a point that I think that maybe ONLY YOU can understand, cuz I don’t think anyone here would.
Ed Chapman
Part2
If the Just have always lived by Faith. Then actions that spring from a lack of Faith seems to me to be the key?
I agree with what you said about
Deuteronomy 1:39 KJV — Moreover your little ones, which ye said should be a prey, and your children, which in that day had no knowledge between good and evil, they shall go in thither, and unto them will I give it, and they shall possess it.
Numbers32:
.10 And the LORD’S anger was kindled the same time, and he sware, saying,11 Surely none of the men that came up out of Egypt, from twenty years old and upward, shall see the land which I sware unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob; because they have not wholly followed me:12 Save Caleb the son of Jephunneh the Kenezite, and Joshua the son of Nun
So I’ve taken this to be that though sinners, God doesn’t punish them directly. Or they are not directly accountable to God… a bit like “they are not of age” still under parental supervision.
After that age God holds them directly accountable because no longer “children” but adults.
Interestingly enough research shows ” that development of the frontal cortex, which helps a person to plan, reflect and think, does not fully develop until at least 21 years of age.”
“The brain’s frontal cortex is associated with executive functions like:
Decision-making.Insight.Judgment.Inhibitory control”
Prior to that alot of decision making is done from the back which is the emotional side of the brain. This is why you can have a very intelligent teen, but still unwise.
ps: I see this passage to be more related to direct accountable to God for choices one makes, than salvation age.
UPDATE: Although I personally in times past see the picture/ link between promised land and the new heavens and the earth to come. I haven’t been dogmatic about it, simply because Moses didn’t make it, but it didn’t mean he didn’t enter the True Promise land, because we see him appearing with Jesus in NT.
Rom5:19For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.20 Moreover the law entered, that the offence might abound. But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound:21 That as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord
So one man sinned(Adam) and in doing so passed on a nature that is bent towards sin: making us sinners (people that can and do sin) (from thoughts ie the spirit side of us, first, leading to sinful actions with our members, the body
Part 3 following
Part4
No Original Sin:
Deut24:16
Ezekiel 18:20
Sinners but not inputed when fall.into this category:
Deut1:39
(The evil that God was judging was unbelief! Deut1:27 27And ye murmured in your tents, and said…..vs29 “Then I said unto you, Dread not, neither….to vs31.
Vs32 the problem: “32Yet in this thing ye did not believe the LORD your God,”
UNBELIEF/LACK OF FAITH, after God has revealed Himself is what brought on His wrath (Without Faith its impossible to please God)
Hebrews 3:12 KJV — Take heed, brethren, lest there be in any of you an EVIL HEART OF UNBELIEF, in departing from the living God.
Vs39¶Moreover your little ones, which ye said should be a prey, and your children, which in that day had no knowledge between good(Faith based) and evil,(Unbelief)
Isaiah 7:15,16; Heb5:13-14. It is a lack of Faith that produces evil works.
Here we see why God didn’t account children
2 And know ye this day: for I speak not with your children which have not known, and which have not seen the chastisement of the LORD your God, his greatness, his mighty hand, and his stretched out arm,3 And his miracles, and his acts, which he did in the midst of Egypt unto Pharaoh the king of Egypt, and unto all his land;
So it seems that the eternal penalty of sin is not imputed where the DISOBEDIENCE that comes from a lack of Faith (after God has revealed Himself is what offends God and what He judges) is not committed (though commit sins)
I don’t think there’s an age for this, but those who are sinners but do not have their sin imputed is because of lack of the knowledge of the law of Faith ( the gospel or prior to Christ, Gods revelation of Himself/type of Gospel) Eg the hall of Faith, Heb 11 had righteousness imputed via a non Christ gospel
18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them
Heb11:24 By faith Moses, when he was come to years, refused to be called the son of Pharaoh’s daughter; (pharaohs daughter to me is symbolic of the world and earthly pleasures that compromise faith)
I also came across this:
“Human sinfulness commences in that period of one’s life that is characterized as youth (Genesis 8:21; Jeremiah 3:25).”
If this accurate it would also be an age when God expects that one is able to understand the Law of sin&death and more importantly The Law of Faith.
I also observe that:
Prior to THE LAW… laws existed from Adam handed down to Noah handed down to Tower of Babel. To Abraham. It wasn’t to the depth of The Law…. but they were aware of breaking spiritual/moral laws. But without having the True revelation of Gods nature and born with a carnal nature…. they produced limited righteous acts and corrupt acts.
God visited the pre flood people, but they did not respond to the preacher of righteousness (Noah), and died in their sin.
In each generation there’s always been a form of the Gospel. Ie an opportunity to know&express Faith through : Adam, Abel, Seth, Enoch, Noah,
Cain was not accepted and was punished because he sinned against the law of conscience at least. He sinned because he didn’t come to God in faith (but through his own self righteous works) and when he didn’t repent at the rebuke of God, his heart was hardened by sin which was crouching at the door and lead to him committing murder, a sin that was inputted and which was punished.
I think physical death comes as a wage to sin. But spiritual death comes through a lack of Faith. Faith is the only way to have righteousness imputed and sins covered. THE JUST(Justified) live By Faith.
Part 5 following..
Part 5
I think prior to Christ gospel. There was a “type” of Gospel preached in that generation. Whilst the manifestation of Christ the Fulfilment came. Whether by Adam handing down the lamb sacrifice to proceeding generations. According to genealogy Adam was still alive ar the same time as Noah. No doubt they heard the account of God etc thorough Him
Romans 5:12 KJV — Wherefore, as by one man SIN ENTERED into the world, and DEATH BY SIN; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:
This tells me that Adam passed on a sin nature… instead of the pure nature he had before the fall. Then sin (personal sin which is inevitable) leads to our personal physical death sentence. But until sin is imputed, you do not receive eternal death, because that is dependent on breaking the Law of Faith (ie unbelief in the revelation of God/the gospel.
Romans 5:21 KJV — That as SIN HATH REIGNED UNTO DEATH, even so might GRACE REIGN through righteousness UNTO ETERNAL LIFE by Jesus Christ our Lord.
John 3:18 KJV — HE THAT BELIEVETH on him is NOT CONDEMNED: but he that believeth not is condemned already, BECAUSE HE HATH NOT BELIEVED in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
So Adam did not pass on Death (“original sin”) but passed on sin…. sin in us through our personal disobedience to law of conscience or The Law sentences us to death. Which if we die in, therefore not receiving imputed righteousness, leads to eternal death/spiritual death.
Adam did not pass on a dead spirit which cannot respond to God. But a corrupt/carnal nature which cannot give us spiritual life, or used to obtain spiritual life because it cannot keep the Spiritual Law which when kept would reward us with Life. Romans 7:10 KJV — And the commandment, which was ordained to life, I found to be unto death.
I do think so far that Blind Jews will have their eyes unblinded when the time of the gentiles is complete, but not every individual jew will be saved. Just like now in the time of the gentiles not every single gentiles will be saved. I think in the time of the Jews you’ll have the reverse more Jews being saved than Gentiles and there will be much hardened Gentiles. But both are only individually saved/accepted by Faith.
I think that as long as Adam lived by the Law, (Do not eat) He would have remained physically alive, but the capacity to fall would still be there because The law does not have the power to give life.
But if in his pure state he took of The tree of Life, that would have been a work of Faith and would have granted him eternal life and had victory over sin and death, cause with the fruit of the tree of life in him, he would not have gone for the tree of knowledge of good and evil.
I think if as you exampled, Adam was smoking (LOL) in Eden
I think it would have counted as sin, because only the tree of knowledge can inspire that! 🙂
I’ve seen your other comments about Abraham and Sarah @ incest. Adam and Eve are technically siblings and certainly Cains wife.. and the first generation of humans….(selah)(meaning pause to consider)
It might be that by the time of The Law, God had to make a law of it for health reasons, in that the human race was so fallen physically that the increase of disabled offspring was now going to be common place, unlike in earlier times when mans physical dna was not as corrupt resulting in longer life spans.
We know that The Law was not only concerned with spiritual but physical/health laws to give His people optimum and Holistic Well-being
I think Pharaoh was /is saved because, he had opportunity to repent and put his faith in the true and living God and he didn’t. Moses showed him God and Pharaoh hardened his heart and later God sealed that hardening and used him as an example of what happens to people who don’t believe after He has revealed Himself to them
In NT especially, I’ve come to see that Gods vessels of wrath are those who fall into this category:
2 Thessalonians 2:
10 And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; BECAUSE THEY RECEIVED NOT THE LOVE OF THE TRUTH, that they might be saved.11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:12 That they all might be damned who BELIEVED NOT THE TRUTH, but had pleasure in unrighteousness
Romans 2:8 KJV — But unto them that are contentious, and DO NOT OBEY THe TRUTH, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath,
Galatians 3:1 KJV — O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you, that ye should NOT OBEY THE TRUTH, before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth, crucified among you?
The eternal wrath of God I believe is on anyone who does not OBEY THE TRUTH…(not of the Law) but on FAITH…. When God reveals Himself…. as it says in Galatians scripture, whose eyes Jesus Christ (or his “type”) in times prior hath been evidently set fort.
.
Lastly:
For when we were in the flesh, the motions of sins, which were by the law, did work in our members to bring forth fruit unto death.
[ SO sin was already at work to bring forth death]
What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.
But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. For without the law sin was dead. For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died.
[ I take this to mean that Paul thought He was right before God, Alive as it were, but when the Law came he realised he was dead]
And the commandment, which was ordained to life, I found to be unto death.
[ THE commandment which says don’t do this and live, BUT because have a carnal nature we cannot keep the Law, and so it therefore sentences us to death]
For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it slew me.
Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good. Was then that which is good made death unto me? God forbid.
But sin, that it might appear sin, WORKING death in me by that which is good; that SIN BY the commandment MIGHT BECOME EXCEEDINGLY sinful.
[ THIS I think is linked to vs9&10 because the Law now shows him that he is not alive at all, he realises he is EXCEEDINGLY sinful. And that therefore/all the while he is not alive at all but is sentenced to Death! (ie death penalty not deadness ).]
For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin.
[THIS IS WHAT WE RECEIVED FROM ADAM… A CARNAL NATURE (no longer spritual that’s why can’t obey the law, cause the law is Spritual and we are not (due to Adam and what he handed down, ie Rom7:13
Sin WORKING death in me, Body of Sin Rom6:6, vs12 a mortal body that has sin reigning in it,
Infirmity of the Flesh 6:19, vs20 servants to sin, James4:1 lust in our members, Rom7:23 law of sin in our members., vs 24 body of death, Rom8:3 Sinful flesh, 8:23 a dead body due to sin.
15For that which I do I allow not: for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I. If then I do that which I would not, I consent unto the law that it is good. Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me. For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not.
[This shows that a sinful man not yet saved, has in him the ability/desire to want to do good! BUT CANNOT due to the sinful body inherited from Adam]
19 For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do. Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me. I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me. For I delight in the law of God after the inward man: But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members. O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death?
[ Here again a sinful man wants to do good but is hindered by a body of death]. [So he cries who can deliver me….the answer follows in vs25
I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord.[SALVATION] So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin.
[Now that we are saved no longer have to be lead by the Flesh hence Chapter 8:1-4!!]
OK, Clare, I’m back,
…trafic!
Before I iget to “original sin” I’ll go thru a few of your provided verses.
PART 1:
Key words: Wages, RIGHTEOUSNESS
1. Romans 6:23 KJV — For the wages of sin is death;
The key word in that is WAGE. Wage implies WORK. Work implies “obeying the law of Moses”, aka WORKS OF THE LAW!
WORKING for a WAGE of eternal life by obeying the law is SELF RIGHTEOUSNESS, meaning, DEATH, because if you fail at just one point, you failed all of it…but God gives eternal life as a GIFT, NO WORK REQUIRED, therefore, no wage!
Romans 3:21
But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets;
We should all know that the Old Testament, aka, Old Covenant, First Covenant, begins in Exodus 20. This is where God spoke to ALL of the children of Israel at Mt. Sinai. After God Spoke the Ten Commandments to ALL of the children of Israel, they were afraid that if God continued to speak to them, that they would die, so they asked if Moses would speak to them about what God wants of them, instead of God himself.
Exodus 20:19
And they said unto Moses, Speak thou with us, and we will hear: but let not God speak with us, lest we die. So, Moses continued to listen to God, and Moses gave the word of the Lord to ALL of the children of Israel.
Exodus 24:3
And Moses came and told the people all the words of the Lord, and all the judgments: and all the people answered with one voice, and said, All the words which the Lord hath said will we do.
Notice the last word in that verse, “do”. Later, in Deuteronomy 5, Moses once again reiterates what was spoken in Exodus 20 – 24. After that review, the children of Israel responds:
Deuteronomy 6:25
And it shall be our righteousness, if we observe to do all these commandments before the Lord our God, as he hath commanded us.
Again, notice the word, “do”. That is works of righteousness. Obedience to the law of Moses is known as works of Righteousness. If anyone can keep the law perfectly, then they have “earned” a wage, and God “owes” them eternal life. That is why it is called “works”, or “deeds”.
Romans 4:4
Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt.
Romans 3:20
Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.
Romans 3:23
For all have sinned.
Romans 6:23
the wages of sin is death
So, who can be obedient to the Law of Moses and get to heaven? No one.
Galatians 2:16
a man is not justified by the works of the law…for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.
Galatians 3:10
For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them.
Remember the word, “do” from Exodus and Deuteronomy? Do is works, and works REQUIRES a wage, works of the law is a curse, DEATH.
to be continued…
Clare,
Part 2:
NO WAGE! AKA NO WORKS!
1 John 3:4
sin is the transgression of the law.
Romans 3:20
the law is the knowledge of sin.
Romans 5:13
For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.
Romans 4:15
where no law is, there is no transgression.
Romans 4:8
Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin.
Romans 6:7
For he that is dead is freed from sin.
Romans 6:11
Likewise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead
Romans 7:4
ye also are become dead to the law
Galatians 2:19
For I through the law am dead to the law,
Romans 7:8
For without the law sin was dead.
Galatians 2:21
if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.
Romans 3:21
But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested
Romans 4:5
faith is counted for righteousness.
Romans 4:13
not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith.
Romans 4:16
Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace
Galatians 3:12
the law is not of faith
Galatians 3:21
if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law.
Romans 4:2
For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God.
Romans 4:5-6
But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness. Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works,
Romans 11:6
And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then it is no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.
Faith is NOT imputed.
There is ONLY two things that can be “IMPUTED” to us.
1. Sin
2. Righteousness
Righteousness can only be imputed in two different ways.
1. Works (DEEDS/OBEYING/OBSERVING) The Law of Moses
2. Faith
For all have sinned (NOT OBEYED THE LAW OF MOSES). Then how are we made righteous? Faith alone without the Law of Moses. We are now under the Law of Christ, which is the Law of Faith, which is the Law of Freedom (liberty) and the COMMANDMENTS of Jesus is a singular commandment: Love Thy Neighbor as Thyself. Now, some will say that we have two commandments, and I left out the Love God part. However, the way that 1 John explains it, is that we prove that we love God by loving people. For Love fulfills ALL, not just the parchment, but the stones, too, the law of Moses. The singular commandment of Love is the delight, the joy, not obeying the Law of Moses, which is a curse.
Galatians 4:21
Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the law?
Why was the Law of Moses instituted? Was it to bring about morality, so that sin would decrease? Many seem to think so. They call it “God’s Standards”. Really?
Romans 5:20 (NIVr)
The law was given so that sin would increase.
Did Abraham really need a law that stated, “Thou Shalt Not Steal” to know that it is wrong to steal? Think about that.
Romans 2:14-16
For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;) In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel.
By nature, they obey laws that they don’t even have. It’s called a conscience. And Jesus judges them by what they know, not by what they don’t know, and Paul calls that good news (gospel), and these people don’t even know God, or Jesus. So, do people who don’t know God, or Jesus, automatically go to hell because they are sinners? NO. But some seem to think so.
Again:
Galatians 4:21
Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the law?
Bottom line:
Faith is KNOWING that we are going to get what we are waiting for. Obeying the law of Moses is earning your way, not knowing for sure.
Acts 15:5
But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses.
Acts 15:24
Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law: to whom we gave no such commandment:
The law of Moses is Bondage. Jesus set us free from the law. Flesh vs. Spirit
Galatians 4:24
for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage
Clare,
Part 3:
Romans 2:14-16
I see these passages discussing Gentiles who have NO KNOWLEDGE OF JESUS at all, and that are judged by THEIR CONSCIENCE.
Hebrews tells us that i is appointed unto men once to die, and THEN the judgment. Seems to me that Christians are judging THOSE people long before Jesus does.
IF the LAW written in their heart, which I call a CONSCIENCE (for no one needs to be told that it is a wrong to steal and lie),convicts them, HOW DO THEY RESOVE THAT? Jesus will judge them, but I’ve heard people of all walks of Christianity telling me that UNLESS THEY COME TO JESUS BEFORE THEY DIE, THEY ARE ALL BURNING IN HELL!
Do you believe that?
I sure don’t.
Continued…
Ed Chapman
Clare,
Part 4:
Innocent children:
You had said:
“The only ones to whom sin is not imputed though they sin, are the innocent (eg children to the degree that they are not connected to/ recognise the realisation of law breaking towards God in their hearts) (whatever age that happens) / in ability to comprehend the gospel, in a state of innocence they are covered by the blood, if they die young / in that state @ death (the wages of sin being the physical death, but Christ blood covers them with regards Second death, because sin though it existed wasn’t imputed)”
My response:
I agree, but ONLY HALF WAY.
They are NOT COVERED BY THE BLOOD OF CHRIST. They began their life already with God, and without that KNOWLEDGE (eating of the tree of KNOWLEDGE) themselves, they never spiritually died to begin with. This will be discussed in my next about the Catholic Concept/Doctrine of ORIGINAL SIN.
IF you spiritually interpret scripture, then you KNOW that the PROMISED LAND is ETERNAL LIFE in HEAVEN.
WHO GOT TO GO TO THE PROMISED LAND IN DEUTERONOMY:
RING THE BELL
DING DING DING DING!
1. Those who had FAITH (CALEB AND JOSHUA)
2. Those who had NO KNOWLEDGE OF GOOD AND EVIL
notice the word KNOWLEDGE? What was the name of that tree again?
Deuteronomy 1:39
Moreover your little ones, which ye said should be a prey, and your children, which in that day had no knowledge between good and evil, they shall go in thither, and unto them will I give it, and they shall possess it.
NEXT will be my explanation as to why I don’t believe in original sin!
But I need a 20 minute break…
Ed Chapman
Hi Chapman
Sorry I’ve messed up the flow. I’ve sent some parts responses in the reply section preceding, your parts responses, but they should have come after your Part 4 message.
Also I meant to say Pharaoh NOT saved
Thanks
Clare
Clare,
OK, so now…Original Sin:
You had said:
“Rom5:12¶Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:
13(For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.
14Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam’s transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.
In particular vs14…nevertheless etc.
From what I see of this, Paul is teaching that though humanity didn’t disobey like Adam (a direct commandment), men (all men) are still experiencing death. Showing/proving that all men are sinners though they didn’t disobey like Adam. For if they were not sinners they wouldn’t die.”
My response:
First, we MUST distinguish CARNAL DEATH vs. SPIRITUAL DEATH.
I submit that the passage of Romans 5:12 and 14 is discussing CARNAL DEATH ONLY.
I also submit that Genesis 2:17 is discussing SPIRITUAL DEATH ONLY.
That distinction is NECESSARY in explaining why I disagree with the concept of Original Sin.
What is SPIRITUAL DEATH?
Romans 7:9
For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died.
Romans 3:20
the law is the knowledge of sin.
Genesis 2:9, 17
knowledge of good and evil [is the CAUSE of SPIRITUAL DEATH]
——————————–
Did you ever happen to notice that God NEVER TOLD Adam about the Tree of Life? He never told him to eat freely of that tree, either. He only told Adam what tree NOT to eat from.
Try putting a CHOCOLATE bar in the middle of your child’s bedroom, and tell him/her not to eat of it, and see what they do! But don’t tell them about the spinach that will get them a trip to Disneyland!
——————————–
Did Adam BEGIN his LIFE on Earth as an ETERNAL being?
I will submit, NO, NOPE, NOTTA, NEVER, AND NEVER EVER.
So, what does that mean in English?
It means that Adam was gonna DIE a NATURAL CARNAL DEATH ANYWAY, whether he ate of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil or NOT.
Remember PLEASE that the Tree of Life was in the Garden for a PURPOSE, and that purpose was, that IF he would have eaten of that tree, he would have OBTAINED eternal life.
God blocked that Tree of Life after Adam ate of the Tree of Knowledge, because Adam was in a fallen state, and IF Adam was to have eaten of the Tree of Life in a fallen state, THEN Adam would have ETERNAL LIFE IN A FALLEN STATE, with NO CHANCE of ANY relationship with God PERIOD.
Now, Romans 5:12 and 14, which I already said that I submit that is discussing NATURAL CARNAL DEATH ONLY.
WE all DIE because ADAM was gonna die a natural death anyway, and he never OBTAINED eternal life by eating of the Tree of Life…NOT BECAUSE HE ATE OF THE TREE OF KNOWLEDGE OF GOOD AND EVIL. The eating of THAT TREE only caused TEMPORAL separation from God, until God covered their sin with a sacrifice to re-establish the relationship again.
That knowledge of sin…his own sin…is what led to spiritual death, a separation from God.
To put it in simpler terms, ADAM SINNED LONG BEFORE eating of that tree…he just didn’t have any knowledge of it. The disobedience of eating of that tree was NOT the PRIMARY focus of the word SIN.
What was it that gave him GUILT? He covered his private parts with a fig leaf. He told God that he was naked. God asked, “WHO TOLD YOU THAT YOU WERE NAKED?
God never told him that he was naked. And ya know what else? Satan never did either. Adam got KNOWLEDGE of Good and Evil SUPERNATURALLY by eating of that tree.
But we DIE a natural death all because Adam never obtained eternal life from the OTHER TREE that God never told him about. And once he ate of the tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, God forbid him from access to the tree of life.
If God did not block that tree of Life, then Adam’s offspring, you and I, would NEVER be able to have any relationship with God whatsoever, but Adam would be here RIGHT NOW alive, in a fallen state, WOULD HE NOT?
I will submit that YES, Adam would be alive right now in a fallen state had God not blocked that tree, and NONE OF US would ever die, but we would have INHERITED eternal separation from God.
I often ask people, What is the #1 cause of death in the world. The answers I get are usually MEDICAL answers. But my response back to them is LIFE.
If you live, you will die. No one gets out of here alive!
Some people get it!!!!!
Anyway, these are the reasons that i do not believe in Original Sin, and…that Romans 5 is NOT discussing SPIRITUAL DEATH, but CARNAL NATURAL DEATH.
Ed Chapman
chapmaned24 writes, “Without knowledge, you are not dead in your trespasses and sin. Romans 7”
Or, Without knowledge, a person does not know that he is dead in his trespasses and sin.
“the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.” (Galatians 3)
Romans 4, sin is NOT imputed where there is no law, even tho you sinned. Therefore, you are not dead in your sins without knowledge of sin.
chapmaned24 writes, “Romans 4, sin is NOT imputed where there is no law, even tho you sinned. Therefore, you are not dead in your sins without knowledge of sin.”
Yet, you still die.
And we die because Adam did not eat of the tree of life. He would have still lived in a fallen state if he would have eaten of the tree of life, even in a fallen state. But God blocked access. That’s in Genesis 3:22. The reason he died was because he never ate of the tree of life. Adam began his life existence on this earth as with a body that dies, so, he was gonna die anyway, whether he sinned, or not.
chapmaned24 writes, “And we die because Adam did not eat of the tree of life.”
We die because Adam sinned. “…just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned..”
Then, “Adam began his life existence on this earth as with a body that dies, so, he was gonna die anyway, whether he sinned, or not. ”
Paul writes, “the wages of sin is death.” How does Adam die if he does not sin?
rhutchin,
I don’t disagree with your statement. But I do disagree with your premise.
Adam got KNOWLEDGE that God didn’t want him to have.
God did not want him to know what sin is.
His sin was being naked. He was ashamed of being naked.
But, Calvinists will say that his ONLY sin was being disobedient of eating a particular tree, and that knowledge if good and evil was really a side issue.
No. His sin was what gave him shame.
God didn’t want him to know that he was naked. He asked Adam, specifically, “WHO TOLD YOU THAT YOU WERE NAKED?”
AND for THAT sin, he was not allowed to get eternal life.
However, I asked you a question. Would Adam have lived forever, even since he sinned, if he would have eaten of the tree of life.
Genesis 3:22 states YES.
Again. Adam did not begin his life on this planet with an eternal body. He was gonna die anyway.
in order to have not died, he would have had to have eaten of the tree of life.
There is no way around that. He never ate of the tree that would have made him not die, and he could have eaten of it regardless of sinning, had God not blocked access to that tree.
God intervened to prevent him from eating of it to live forever.
Ed Chapman
chapmaned24 writes, “[Adam’s] sin was being naked.”
God created Adam and Adam was naked. So was Eve. How could that be a sin?
Then, “Again. Adam did not begin his life on this planet with an eternal body. He was gonna die anyway.”
Yet, Paul tells us that death entered because of sin.
rhutchin,
Whether or not God put him in the garden naked or not, Adam covered his nakedness, and was ashamed of it.
And that is what he felt guilty of. God never told him that he was naked, for God asked him, specifically, WHO TOLD YOU THAT YOU WERE NAKED? Up until then, Adam didn’t know that he was naked. No one told him. But once he knew, he was ashamed. And he tried to cover his shame with a fig leaf.
That has spiritual meaning, too. God covered his sin with sacrificing an animal
God killed the first animal as a sacrifice to cover the sin, shame, guilt, nakedness.
But, Calvinists only concentrate on the disobedience part. They refuse to see the spiritual part. The sacrifice, a picture of Jesus, from the very beginning.
chapmaned24 writes, “God never told [Adam] that he was naked, for God asked him, specifically, WHO TOLD YOU THAT YOU WERE NAKED? Up until then, Adam didn’t know that he was naked. No one told him. But once he knew, he was ashamed.”
No disagreement with me. Moreover, being naked was not a sin as Adam was made naked and God did not clothe him until after he sinned, a point that you now seem to accept.
rhutchin,
Revelation 16:15
Behold, I come as a thief. Blessed is he that watcheth, and keepeth his garments, lest he walk naked, and they see his shame.
Isaiah 47:3
Thy nakedness shall be uncovered, yea, thy shame shall be seen:
Lamentations 1:8
Jerusalem hath grievously sinned; therefore she is removed: all that honoured her despise her, because they have seen her nakedness:
Yes, it was a sin. Otherwise Adam would not have had the guilt that he was naked.
Sin is the transgression of the law (1 John 3:4)
Romans 3:20 The law is the KNOWLEDGE of Sin
The Law of Moses (BEGINS IN EXODUS 20):
Exodus 20:26
Neither shalt thou go up by steps unto mine altar, that thy nakedness be not discovered thereon.
Leviticus 18:6
None of you shall approach to any that is near of kin to him, to uncover their nakedness: I am the Lord.
Leviticus 18:7
The nakedness of thy father, or the nakedness of thy mother, shalt thou not uncover: she is thy mother; thou shalt not uncover her nakedness.
Leviticus 18:9
The nakedness of thy sister, the daughter of thy father, or daughter of thy mother, whether she be born at home, or born abroad, even their nakedness thou shalt not uncover.
Leviticus 18:10
The nakedness of thy son’s daughter, or of thy daughter’s daughter, even their nakedness thou shalt not uncover: for theirs is thine own nakedness.
Leviticus 18:11
The nakedness of thy father’s wife’s daughter, begotten of thy father, she is thy sister, thou shalt not uncover her nakedness.
Leviticus 18:12
Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy father’s sister: she is thy father’s near kinswoman.
Leviticus 18:13
Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy mother’s sister: for she is thy mother’s near kinswoman.
Leviticus 18:14
Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy father’s brother, thou shalt not approach to his wife: she is thine aunt.
Leviticus 18:15
Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy daughter in law: she is thy son’s wife; thou shalt not uncover her nakedness.
Leviticus 18:16
Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy brother’s wife: it is thy brother’s nakedness.
Leviticus 18:17
Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of a woman and her daughter, neither shalt thou take her son’s daughter, or her daughter’s daughter, to uncover her nakedness; for they are her near kinswomen: it is wickedness.
Leviticus 18:18
Neither shalt thou take a wife to her sister, to vex her, to uncover her nakedness, beside the other in her life time.
Leviticus 18:19
Also thou shalt not approach unto a woman to uncover her nakedness, as long as she is put apart for her uncleanness.
Leviticus 20:11
And the man that lieth with his father’s wife hath uncovered his father’s nakedness: both of them shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
Leviticus 20:17
And if a man shall take his sister, his father’s daughter, or his mother’s daughter, and see her nakedness, and she see his nakedness; it is a wicked thing; and they shall be cut off in the sight of their people: he hath uncovered his sister’s nakedness; he shall bear his iniquity.
NOTE: THE ABOVE VERSE, ABRAHAM WAS MARRIED TO HIS SISTER, ACCORDING TO LEVITICUS 20:17…BUT HE DID NOT KNOW THAT THIS WAS A SIN! ISAAC CAME FROM THAT RELATIONSHIP!
Leviticus 20:18
And if a man shall lie with a woman having her sickness, and shall uncover her nakedness; he hath discovered her fountain, and she hath uncovered the fountain of her blood: and both of them shall be cut off from among their people.
Leviticus 20:19
And thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy mother’s sister, nor of thy father’s sister: for he uncovereth his near kin: they shall bear their iniquity.
Leviticus 20:20
And if a man shall lie with his uncle’s wife, he hath uncovered his uncle’s nakedness: they shall bear their sin; they shall die childless.
Leviticus 20:21
And if a man shall take his brother’s wife, it is an unclean thing: he hath uncovered his brother’s nakedness; they shall be childless.
chapmaned24 writes, “Yes, it was a sin. Otherwise Adam would not have had the guilt that he was naked.”
Adam’s realization that he was naked did not make being naked a sin otherwise he would have reacted that way in previous meetings with God. It was Adam’s sin that made him realize that he was naked – thus guilt of sin. The most we can say is that nakedness is a picture of a person’s guilt before God. There is nothing about nakedness that is sinful. To uncover a person’s nakedness – in Leviticua – was an euphemism for engaging in sexual activity.
rhutchin,
You had said:
“Yet, Paul tells us that death entered because of sin.”
I need you to clarify what you mean when you use the word, “death”.
Do you mean CARNAL DRATH, or SPIRITUAL death?
Yes, Adam and all of us die a CARNAL death. But, when you say, ” because of sin, that means that Adam never ate of the Tree of Life.
Another question. Did God tell Adam about the tree of life?
Not everyone dies a spiritual death, but we all do die a CARNAL death.
Romans 7:9
For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died.
Paul died a spiritual death here. But before that, he, as indicated by the first word in the verse, a pronoun, was spiritually alive. Why?
Just like natural life comes before death, so also is SPIRITUAL life before SPIRITUAL death. Then comes spiritual life AGAIN, which Jesus calls, born again. That is also a REPRESENTATION of the resurrection of the body. Life, death, then life again. Spiritual life, and carnal life.
But, When Paul states that death entered BECAUSE of sin, which death are you talking about?
If you have no knowledge of sin, you can’t die a spiritual death at all.
There is a distinction between both.
Ed Chapman
I had stated Romans 4 regarding not being SPIRITUALLY DEAD. NOT CARNALLY DEATH. BABIES WHO CSRNALLY DIE NEVER SPIRITUALLY DIED. THEY WERE NEVER DEAD IN THEIR SINS. EVER.
Chapman posted these statements :
1. “Calvinists do not know how to find the spiritual. They are carnally minded.”
Ed Chapman
CHAPMANED24
DECEMBER 17, 2018 AT 2:01 PM
Jtleosala,
2. “You don’t know what the BAD news is, and you are a preacher? Tisk, tisk! Shame on you.”
———— Here’s My Response ———–
1. Instead of focusing to his arguments, Chapman here had made an “argumentum ad hominem” to all Calvinists in his statement # 1 above. Any debater will never win using this strategy.
2. Chapmam claims for those he calls as “bad news” in the word of God and yet he cannot afford to enumerate them here. Instead he made another “ad hominem” in his opponent.
jtleosala,
ad hominem, a favorite word with Calvinists to dissenters of Calvinism.
My response to jtleosala is, HE’S GOT THE SAME BOOK AS I DO, he can research it on his own, since, since the references that I indeed provided, WITHOUT ANY AD HOMINEM’S AT ALL, he IGNORES.
So, to jtleosala, I dust my feet! SEE YA! BU-BUY!
Ed Chapman
Chapman posted this one:
“Life comes before death, Romans 7. Death comes at the KNOWLEDGE of sin. That knowledge is found in Romans 3:20. Gentiles didn’t have the law. Adam got knowledge from…what was the name of that tree again? I forgot. Read Romans 4, where no law is, there is no transgression. Then revisit Romans 5:13 again.”
———— Here’s My Response ————–
1. “Life comes before death” agree with this one, if only applied to Adam and Eve before their fall to sin.
2. You cannot find the word “death” in Romans 3:20. Where did you get that word? It seems to me that you have just infused that word in that verse.
3. “Gentiles didn’t have the law” – this is your claim. Are you insinuating in this statement that the Gentiles are righteous and are not sinners? Is this what you mean?
4. Here is the content of Romans 5:13 For until the law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law.
Question: Are you making a conclusion of Romans 5:13 of your claim for the Gentiles as not guilty and are righteous before God? Is this what you mean?
tleosala,
You, a teacher, have no clue, do you?
Did you read Romans 7? Read below and I will point out Romans 7 for you!
1 John 3:4
sin is the transgression of the law.
Romans 3:20
the law is the knowledge of sin.
Romans 5:13
For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.
Romans 4:15
where no law is, there is no transgression.
Romans 4:8
Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin.
Romans 6:7
For he that is dead is freed from sin.
Romans 6:11
Likewise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead
Romans 7:4
ye also are become dead to the law
Galatians 2:19
For I through the law am dead to the law,
***********************jtleosala***************************
*************************Romans 7:8***************************************************
For without the law sin was dead. <—————————–SIN WAS DEAD WITHOUT THE LAW
********************Romans 7:9************************************
For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died.<——–NOW READ ROMANS 3;20 AGAIN!
Galatians 2:21
if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.
Romans 3:21
But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested
Romans 4:5
faith is counted for righteousness.
Romans 4:13
not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith.
Romans 4:16
Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace
Galatians 3:12
the law is not of faith
Galatians 3:21
if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law.
Romans 4:2
For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God.
Romans 4:5-6
But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness. Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works,
Romans 11:6
And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then it is no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.
JTLEOSALA,
I will add to that Romans 7:7
I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.
Chapman posted this one:
“My response to jtleosala is, HE’S GOT THE SAME BOOK AS I DO, he can research it on his own, since, since the references that I indeed provided, WITHOUT ANY AD HOMINEM’S AT ALL, he IGNORES.”
——– Here’s My Response ———–
1. Failure to show those “bad news” as you claim in the word of God could be an indirect admittance of giving up his claim.
2. It is understandable that when you come into a debate, it will not turn automatically, that your opponent will consistently say “Amen” to all of your claims.
jtleosala,
I could care less if you say, “amen” or not. I’m looking at you as a teacher who is ingorant, not a student seeking answers from me. Huge difference. I’m not seeking glory from you.
Ed Chapman
Chapman [posted this one:
“Romans 7:8***************************************************
For without the law sin was dead. <—————————–SIN WAS DEAD WITHOUT THE LAW"
"********************Romans 7:9************************************
For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died.<——–NOW READ ROMANS 3;20 AGAIN!"
———— Here's My Response ————
1. When Paul have said, "I was alive without the law" in Rom. 7:8, what did Paul meant for himself for that word "alive" ? Since you have cited this verse to back up your claim, it is your obligation here to explain this clearly for the sake of all the readers of SOT 101.com
2. Paul admitted to himself that he was alive before the law, (what law he is referring here?). Was Paul already physically alive by the time Moses received the 10 commandments from God?. You need to explain your position on the matter to prove your claim.
3. Do you agree with Paul that according to him, he was "dead" by the time the commandment came? Yes? or No?.
If your answer is YES, then you need to state here clearly your understanding of the word "DEAD" if it is the same meaning with what Paul perceives to himself.
jtleosala,
REALLY?
I find your questions back to me to be childish, coming from a TEACHER. I will only state to you that it is SELF EXPLANITORY that a 2 year old can understand it. I’m being sarcastic, of course. But you are a teacher.
Deuteronomy 1:39 King James Version (KJV)
39 Moreover your little ones, which ye said should be a prey, and your children, which in that day had no knowledge between good and evil, they shall go in thither, and unto them will I give it, and they shall possess it.
There is a time in all Jewish life that they have NO KNOWLEDGE OF GOOD AND EVIL.
The only thing that causes spiritual death is KNOWLEDGE OF GOOD AND EVIL.
But you are asking me about CARNAL DEATH and Moses? Please!
Chapman posted this one:
“Remember PLEASE that the Tree of Life was in the Garden for a PURPOSE, and that purpose was, that IF he would have eaten of that tree, he would have OBTAINED eternal life.”
———– Here’s My Response —————
1. Chapman must unlock here his belief and interpretation of the “TREE OF LIFE” that according to him it was there for a purpose.
2. Are you claiming here the “TREE OF LIFE” as the source of Eternal life?. YES? or NO?
3. Is this “Eternal Life that according to you that can be obtained from that TREE is the same with the “Eternal Life” which Jesus Christ provides?
jtleosala,
I am FLABBERGASTED at your weird questions, TEACHER MAN.
You had said:
“1. Chapman must unlock here his belief and interpretation of the “TREE OF LIFE” that according to him it was there for a purpose.
2. Are you claiming here the “TREE OF LIFE” as the source of Eternal life?. YES? or NO?
3. Is this “Eternal Life that according to you that can be obtained from that TREE is the same with the “Eternal Life” which Jesus Christ provides?”
My response:
WHY must I unlock ANYTHING here?
My discussion was talking about a tree in the Garden of Eden. Nothing more. And at that time, that tree was INDEED the ONLY source of Eternal Life for Adam and Eve.
There was 2 trees that God discussed in Genesis 2. One of those trees, God never told Adam about.
Genesis 2:9
And out of the ground made the Lord God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.
ARE THE WORDS, “TREE OF LIFE” IN THE ABOVE VERSE OR NOT?
I’m not asking as to the number of trees in the garden. I don’t deny the existence of the “Tree of Life”, what I want you to clarify is your understanding of the nature of that “Tree of Life”. The questions remain unanswered.
Again,
I was only discussing the Garden of Eden in the context of the topic of ORIGINAL SIN.
I do not believe in going into TANGENTS.
Your LIMITED SCOPE of Deuteronomy 1:39 with ONLY A CARNAL EXPOSITORY explaination just does not go far enough for me.
We, outside of REFORM knows that spiritual interpretation of the promised land is eternal life in heaven. Heaven is the promised land.
We inherit that promise that was given to Abraham. Deuteronomy 1:39 is a SPIRITUAL INTERPRETATION, but you only see the CARNAL.
So let’s go even farther. BY READING THE HEBREW SCRIPTURES ONLY, WHO IS THE PROMISED SEED?
Isaac in the carnal, but Jesus in the spiritual.
Promised land is:
Physical Land of Israel with SPECIFIC BORDERS in the carnal
Heaven in the spiritual.
Read Deuteronomy in the spiritual instead of the carnal. You MIGHT learn something.
You also might learn about Jesus in the book of Jonah, too if you read it SPIRITUALLY. You will see that Jonah prophesied about Jesus death and that he would go to HELL!
But if you read carnally, you will only see that Jonah was a bad man for not being obedient to God.
This is why I loathe expository preaching. You don’t learn very much that way.
Chapman have posted this one:
“REALLY?”
“I find your questions back to me to be childish, coming from a TEACHER. I will only state to you that it is SELF EXPLANITORY that a 2 year old can understand it. I’m being sarcastic, of course. But you are a teacher.”
“Deuteronomy 1:39 King James Version (KJV)”
“39 Moreover your little ones, which ye said should be a prey, and your children, which in that day had no knowledge between good and evil, they shall go in thither, and unto them will I give it, and they shall possess it.”
“There is a time in all Jewish life that they have NO KNOWLEDGE OF GOOD AND EVIL.”
“The only thing that causes spiritual death is KNOWLEDGE OF GOOD AND EVIL.”
———— Here’s My Response ————–
1. Chapman cannot afford to answer directly My questions. He calls it as “childish”. My questions are very sincere (like that of a child) that these will lead to clarifications and to the unveiling of his claims presented here. Refusal to answer those questions posted would mean that your claims presented here remains blurred and a confusion to the readers of SOT 101.com
2. Deut. 1:39 in it’s context has something to do with Joshua’s campaign in possessing the land of Canaan. There has nothing to do with the issue of “Spiritual Death” to back up your claim that : “The knowledge of Good and Evil” was the cause of Death. This claim of Chapman will remain as an opinion as it is unfounded in Scriptures.
Here is Chapman’s statement: “The only thing that causes spiritual death is KNOWLEDGE OF GOOD AND EVIL.”
JT,
Look, jt, I have a lot of respect for you, so don’t think that I don’t. However, as I said before, you are a teacher, and I find that you don’t really know what I know.
What’s intersting in this to me, is that MANY outside of “REFORM” knows what I am talking about. I learned this stuff ON MY OWN, with just a bible and a Strong’s Concordance.
THEN TO FIND OUT THAT MAINSTREAM CHRISTIANITY TEACHES WHAT I ALREADY LEARNED ON MY OWN WAS A VINDICATION.
Then I learn of CALVINISM, and they (meaning you) teach some serious OFF THE WALL NONSENSE.
Your doctrines are STRANGE to me. No church that I have ever been to teaches what your Calvinism teaches.
I have a lot of respect for the Filipino’s. The majority of my bosses were Filipino’s. I was in the US Navy, and have been to Subic Bay so many times, I can’t even count.
But your theology SUCKS!
Now…I gotta get some sleep, I go to work in about 8 hours from now.
Ed Chapman
Chapman have posted this one:
“Genesis 2:9, 17
knowledge of good and evil [is the CAUSE of SPIRITUAL DEATH]”
———— Here is my Response ————–
What I understand of your claim in using Gen. 2:9, 17 – the “Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil” is that you are trying to PIN DOWN against the wall that TREE as the one culpable. You are trying to make man here free of committing sin and also the Freedom of man here seems to me being cancelled. Is this what you mean? Please clarify your position.
If according to you the Knowledge of Good and Evil is the cause of Spiritual Death, then what does Spiritual Death mean to you? Please explain here…
Chapman have posted this one:
“I was only discussing the Garden of Eden in the context of the topic of ORIGINAL SIN.”
“I do not believe in going into TANGENTS.”
“Your LIMITED SCOPE of Deuteronomy 1:39 with ONLY A CARNAL EXPOSITORY explaination just does not go far enough for me.”
“We, outside of REFORM knows that spiritual interpretation of the promised land is eternal life in heaven. Heaven is the promised land.”
“We inherit that promise that was given to Abraham. Deuteronomy 1:39 is a SPIRITUAL INTERPRETATION, but you only see the CARNAL.”
“So let’s go even farther. BY READING THE HEBREW SCRIPTURES ONLY, WHO IS THE PROMISED SEED?”
“Isaac in the carnal, but Jesus in the spiritual.”
“Promised land is:
Physical Land of Israel with SPECIFIC BORDERS in the carnal
Heaven in the spiritual.”
“Read Deuteronomy in the spiritual instead of the carnal. You MIGHT learn something.”
“You also might learn about Jesus in the book of Jonah, too if you read it SPIRITUALLY. You will see that Jonah prophesied about Jesus death and that he would go to HELL!”
“But if you read carnally, you will only see that Jonah was a bad man for not being obedient to God.”
“This is why I loathe expository preaching. You don’t learn very much that way.”
————- Here’s My Response —————
1. Let us know here your definition of the 2 words you used here : 1. “Carnal Expository” 2. “Spiritual Interpretation”. This will help all of us here so that we will not be assuming things for your claims. In any debate this is being made clear.
2. You said: “We inherit that promise land that was given to Abraham”. Are you a Jew? an Israelite bloodline?
3. For you, Heaven is the Promise land. This is what you claim in your statement above.
Can you tell us here, where in Scripture says that Christ teaches that: “Heaven is the Promise Land” – that place that was conquered under the leadership of Joshua?
Canaan was full of heathen residents. In your spiritual vision of Reading Deut. 1:39 – that Canaan is heaven. Heaven is the abode of God together with Him are the heathen residing in that place. Is this what you are claiming here? Please explain here clearly.
4. When you say : “Isaac in the carnal, but Jesus is the spiritual” – What does it mean for you. Sorry not everyone here knows how to read and comprehend Hebrew language as you claim you do.
jtleosala,
Your responses to shows me that you don’t know how to interpret scripture.
We INHERIT the promises made to Abraham. So are you saying that we receive the physical land of Caanan? That’s a lot of people in a very small piece of real estate.
Read Hebrews 11.
The promised seed. Just reading the Hebrew scriptures only, where do you find that Jesus is the promised seed?
Then read Galatians 3.
Jesus gave a lot of examples between CARNAL reading and spiritual reading.
Jonah was one of many. The purpose of the prophets were to prophesy about Jesus, USING THEIR LIFE as the prophesy. 3 DAYS AND 3 NIGHTS. THE DEEP. THE GATES. etc.
One question Jesus asks, what think he of the Christ? Whose son is he? The Pharisees responded correctly in the CARNAL. They said, THE SON OF DAVID.
But, Jesus points them to Psalms, showing that the Christ is the Father of David, meaning, the creator of David, so, Jesus asks, how can the Christ be David’s son? And no one could answer him.
See Matthew 1:1, that shows that the Pharisees responded correctly in the. Carnal.
But, Jesus was looking at the spiritual, instead in MOST things he discussed.
Ed Chapman
jtleosala,
It is said that if you read spiritually, a Chrstian life is explained thru the children of Israel.
Egypt is translated to SIN. (Bondage)
WANDERING in the desert is translated to STRUGGLING WITH SIN.
Desiring to go back to Egypt is wanting to return back to sinning, cuz ya can’t deal with the struggle.
Crossing the Jordan is translated as physical death.
Entering the promised land is translated as entering the pearly gates of heaven, prevailed.
The biblical interpretation of Israel is STRUGGLES WITH GOD, AND PREVAILED.
Some translations say wrestles with God.
But, in either case, Jacob prevailed. He didn’t lose.
Anyway, songs have been written and sung in church about crossing the Jordan as dying, and entering in to heaven, the promised land.
Spiritual interpretation of the story of the children of Israel.
Now, you can’t possibly tell me that you have never heard that, can you?
That’s a POPULAR teaching. So it’s not unheard of.
Ed Chapman
jtleosala,
You had said:
“. What law are you referring here to back up your claims about the issue of Original Sin. Is it the 10 commandments? given by God to Moses, Is it the Ceremonial Law of the Jews? Is it the Torah? ; Is it the Tannak ? ; Is it the 10 commandments that was summed up into 2 by Jesus Christ?”
My response:
The only response I will give, is a question. What was the GUILT that Adam felt?
Eating of that tree? I say, NO!
He covered his private parts, cuz he got knowledge that he was naked.
He was ashamed that he was naked.
His disobedience gave him KNOWLEDGE that God did not want him having.
Ed Chapman
Chapman quotes : “Romans 5:13 (without any explanation mixing it with lots of separate passages to engage in a dispute with Original Sin)
For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.”
———- Here’s My Response ————
1. What law are you referring here to back up your claims about the issue of Original Sin. Is it the 10 commandments? given by God to Moses, Is it the Ceremonial Law of the Jews? Is it the Torah? ; Is it the Tannak ? ; Is it the 10 commandments that was summed up into 2 by Jesus Christ?
2. If it was the law of command that was directly given by God to Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden, then that could be the main starting point of our argument concerning Romans 5:13 which says that sin is not imputed when there is no law.
Chapman posted this one:
“The only response I will give, is a question. What was the GUILT that Adam felt?”
“Eating of that tree? I say, NO!”
“He covered his private parts, cuz he got knowledge that he was naked.”
“He was ashamed that he was naked.”
“His disobedience gave him KNOWLEDGE that God did not want him having.”
Ed Chapman
———- Here’s My Response ————-
1. Chapman, in his statement posted above clearly shows his admittance that Adam disobeyed God’s command not to eat of the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and evil. He cannot afford to deny this because this is clearly stated in Gen. 3:16-24.
2. Because of Adam and Eve’s disobedience to God’s command, they were found out guilty by God. Chapman cannot argue with God for this.
3. Because God had found them guilty, as a consequence (punishment) God said:
3.1 to the woman ,, God said: “I will greatly multiply your sorrow and your conception; in pain you shall bring forth children; your desire shall be your husband, and he shall rule over you. – Gen 3:16
3.2 to Adam, God said : “Curse is the ground for your sake; in toil you shall eat the herb of the field. In sweat of your face you shall eat bread till you return to the ground, for out of it you were taken; for dust you are, and to dust you shall return. – Gen. 3:17-19
3.3 Therefore the Lord God sent them out of the garden of Eden to till the ground from which he was taken. – Gen. 3:23
4. Chapman cannot afford to deny and argue with God that : Adam and Eve were pronounced guilty and culpable of their acts of disobedience.
5. If Chapman will insist to assert “Knowledge” as the cause of Evil (NOT, MAN), then why God didn’t punish “KNOWLEDGE” at all? — One thing that Chapman cannot argue with any verse in Scripture that will back up his claim.
Here is Chapman’s previous statement.: I re- post it here: “The only thing that causes spiritual death is KNOWLEDGE OF GOOD AND EVIL.”
6. In addition, Chapman cannot afford to deny the creation of Adam as an intellectual being possessing KNOWLEDGE and WILL by the time God created him after His own image.
What would be our conclusion for this ?
Chapman is trying to hogwash Adam and Eve, making them free from guilt of SIN in order to dismantle the doctrine of the “Original Sin”. He had already manifested in his post here his denial of the doctrine of “Original Sin”.
Chapman claims and argue with these statements below:
1. “The law convicts. The law brings guilt. The law is what brings us to salvation. Not some mysterious Holy Spirit Manipulating our minds, our movement, our thoughts, etc.”
2. “Nothing else brings people to Christ but the law.”
———– Here’s My Response ————–
1. The law cannot do the action of convicting sinners. It is the legitimate authority (God) who can pronounce conviction to sinners.
2. It is not the law that brings guilt, but rather the sinner himself for deciding and doing the offense.
3. It is not the law that brings us to Salvation. If there is One who initiated to do the first move to seek the lost is no the than God Himself. By the time Adam and Eve sinned, it was God who took first the initiative to look for them, not the law, nor Adam and Eve.
4. Chapman negates the Divine intervention (The Holy Spirit) in reaching out the fallen man. The LAW for him is the means to bring or reconcile the sinners to God. It is not the Gospel – the death of Christ’s atonement for Sin and His resurrection).
Chapman seems to me had already deviated from the correct path that God has provided in accessing salvation.
jtleosala,
Galatians 3:24
Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.
Not some magical wand that you call divine intervention that manipulates the mind.
Ed Chapman
Chapman’s claim and his argument is posted below:
“We are the hands, feet, and mouth of the holy spirit. We are the body of the holy spirit, called the body of Christ. The Holy Spirit works thru us to evangelize to others.”
———— Here’s My Response —————
1. It seems to me that Chapman’s doctrine on the personality of God, the Holy Spirit is really defective. The Holy Spirit, as a separate personality in the trinity, He has a distinct identity not dependent on others.
2. In his post above, he claims that The Holly Spirit’s divine intervention in reconciling the fallen man to God — This is a contradiction in his another piece of statement in the rest of the thread in this discussion. I will re-post it here below:
Chapman stated this one :
“The law convicts. The law brings guilt. The law is what brings us to salvation. Not some mysterious Holy Spirit Manipulating our minds, our movement, our thoughts, etc.”
This is “double speak” – you might be castigated by your ally here – the “Neurological Impulse Man or woman or both”
jt,
I made no such statement as you indicate in #2. The law is our schoolmaster. That’s in Galatians. The law convicts. I never indicated anything about divine intervention regarding salvation. The Holy Spirit in you guides you, not the sinner. The Holy Spirit guided Paul.
Why can’t you comprehend what I say?
You quoted : “Galatians 3:24”
“Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.” — As far as I understand you are using this verse to support your stand in your denial of God’s divine intervention in the Salvation of the fallen man. Am I correct?
So… are you saying that it is the law that will serve as the bridge or the means by which man is reconciled to God? Is this what you mean in quoting Galatians 3:24?
Sorry if I misquote you regarding divine intervention.
You said: The Holy Spirit in you guides you” —- I agree to this. — then additionally you said :”Not the sinner” — I think you cannot have a full confidence to claim this because, The Holy Spirit as God in the trinity also possess absolute power in which He can exercise in accordance to the will of God. He cannot be restrained to move, operate even to the sinners. Jesus said : that for one to be born again is the work of the Spirit. The Holy Spirit is not limited to work even to the ungodly Kings in the Old Testament. The Holy Spirit is a life giver.
jt,
You are still remaining to be in a delusion that the z Holy Spirit has unrestrained power to save the sinner. You say that born again is the WORK OF the holy spirit.
How did you come to that conclusion?
Born again is AFTER a sinner repents from his sins that he learned from in the law, and this, of course, comes from believing in a savior, Jesus.
I keep saying that life comes before death. Spiritual death can only come when you know what sin is. That means that at one time, we were alive spiritually. Romans 7 Paul discusses HIMSELF, that HE was alive once, that SIN WAS DEAD. Then, THEN he got KNOWLEDGE of sin, HIS OWN SINwhich is what caused spiritual death. He got that knowledge from the law. For he didn’t know lust, until he learned thou shalt not covet.
The Holy Spirit comes INSIDE A BODY to those who repent of what they learn in the law and believe in a saviour, Jesus. Not before. ONCE inside that body, that is born again. Born again is NOT A WORK. It’s not a work of the Spirit Holy, and it’s not a work of man. It’s a consequence of repenting/believing…on your own.
Last, you say that the Holy Spirit is a life giver.
I don’t disagree. But I disagree with what you mean by that.
Life requires a body. You are a spirit residing in a body. That’s natural life. James 2:26, 1 Thess 5:23.
Spiritual Life is when God lives in your body with your spirit.
I hope you understand this.
Ed Chapman
Chapman posted these statements numbered from 1 to 3:
(The ones that are enclosed inside the parenthesis is my Response to each quote of Chapman above)
1. “God will have mercy on those whom he blinded, that is, the Jews. At this time, they can’t come to Christ, until God unblinds them.”
(My Response: Very Good Chapman! — I agree to your statement # 1: that the Jews can’t come to Christ until God unblinded (regenerates) them.
2. “God blinded them for OUR SAKES. Their (JEW) blindness is NOT our (Gentile) blindness. Gentiles are not in the same category as the Jews are.”
(My Response : I agree to Chapman’s claim that the Jews were blinded by God for the sake of the Gentiles)
(If the Gentiles are not spiritually blind then, then why is it that the Gentile sinners cannot discern Spiritual things from God?– This I think Chapman needs to prove in Scriptures)
(Why is it that even the Gentile atheist and Gentile cults cannot discern Spiritual truths from God if they are not blind as Chapman claims? — This is something that Chapman needs to prove in Scriptures)
3. “Gentiles do not get “regenerated”. ONLY the Jews do. Gentiles have NO NEED to be “regenerated”.
(I completely disagree with Chapman’s 3rd statement above. Why? Because Jesus said that Regeneration is a necessity, not an option to all sinner Jews or Gentile Elect. — This is one thing that Chapman cannot afford to deny and argue against Jesus Christ claims)
Jt,
There is only teo places in the bible that the word REGENERATE is used. Gentiles will not be judging the twelves tribes of israel.
Jews are the only ones that word is used for.
I stand by that.
There are conversations that Jesus said to the Jews that have nothing to do with Gentiles at all. This is one of many.
Ed Chapman
“Gentiles do not get “regenerated”. ONLY the Jews do. Gentiles have NO NEED to be “regenerated”.— this statement of yours belie you simply because you don’t believe in the doctrine of the “Original Sin”. All human beings that came from Adam and Eve (unless if you claim you evolved from the apes) are sinners infected-a fact that can never be denied. Humans were born spiritually dead to sin. Unborn babies are also sin infected — their sins remains dormant in themselves while inside the womb.
Regeneration – means re-birth or born again. It is distinguished from our first birth when we were conceived physically in our mother’s womb with dormant inherited sin nature — that is spiritually dead. Regeneration or born again is spiritual that causes us in our being made spiritually alive.
Titus 3:5, the regeneration of the individual fallen man
II Peter 1:4 partakers of the divine nature
II Cor. 5:17 the starting point in the implantation of the New Spiritual life
John 1:13 not born of human parents but of God
I believe in the “Original Sin” and the doctrine of Regeneration (born again, spiritual re-birth) of both Jews and Gentile elect — This I come to dispute with you and I firmly stand by it.
Chapman claim is posted below:
1. “Born again is AFTER a sinner repents from his sins that he learned from in the law, and this, of course, comes from believing in a savior, Jesus.”
2. “I keep saying that life comes before death. Spiritual death can only come when you know what sin is. That means that at one time, we were alive spiritually.”
———— Here’s My Response ————–
1. How can a person repents when he is spiritually dead, unless he is made spiritually alive so that he can come to his senses?
2. You claim number 2 that “life comes before death” — this I agree starting from Adam and Eve by the time they fall to sin. They did not refuse the clothing that was provided to them by God before they were ejected from the garden of Eden-which symbolizes the provision of the Lamb of God by the time Jesus went to the cross of Calvary for the atonement of sins.
Your next statement : “Spiritual death can only come when you know what is sin” — This is true to Adam and Eve and also to the succeeding generations. Babies commit actual sin when they were physically born, but it cannot be denied that they are sin infected with inherited sinful nature while inside their mother’s womb according to Psalm 51:5 and 58:3
Your last statement : “That means that at one time, we were alive spiritually” – is completely wrong. That is only applicable to Adam and Eve before their fall to sin.
Chapman,
Just letting you know that this conversation with JTL probably will not go anywhere. You guys are saying similar words but have different meanings.
For instance JTL asks…
“1. How can a person repents when he is spiritually dead, unless he is made spiritually alive so that he can come to his senses?”
This just demonstrates his presuppositions, ones that he was taught by other Calvinists. They are now “givens” for him and no pile of Bible verses will change his mind (he is, for the moment, too attached to these presupposed ideas).
The rest of us just scratch our heads and wonder why he must start with this as a given. These same “spiritually dead” people can be patient, right? Can they love? Yes. Can they share? Or show kindness? RH says no… they are all-wicked, all-the-time, God-haters. But JTL has admitted that non-believers (“spiritually dead”) can —at least some times— show a kindness (here is where he goes all wild and accuses me of “earning salvation by good works” which is not my point at all). I am not saying the earn salvation by good works.
My point is that “spiritually dead” people show kindness, or have patience, or share, or any number of good things. If they are able to do any good thing at all, ever, then they are not “totally depraved” (which means all-bad, all-the-time, God-haters).
Are they infected by their own sin? Yes? Are they going to perish without Christ? Yes. Can these “good works” save them? No. But they are still “good works.” They are still doing some good things…. capable of some kindness.
My point is that the rest of us say that people are capable of hearing Christ say “come unto me” and responding. ((Just like they hear a policeman say stop speeding and they stop)). Calvinists complicate this. They say that non-believers can do good things, right things, obey the local laws…. they just are “too dead” to hear Christ. The rest of us just dont see Scripture saying that.
He said a second thing (above) that is also very interesting: “….so that he can come to his senses?” Hear the words of Christ telling the story of the prodigal son: Luke 15:17 “When he came to his senses, he said, ‘How many of my father’s hired servants have food to spare…'”
Christ says the son came to his senses. Where is the Father? Making that happen? Irresistibly making him alive? No. Just waiting. The dead son (Christ called him dead 2 times) “comes to his senses.” In the same way we can answer JTL’s question —- Christ even says that “dead” people can come to their senses. Scripture defends this idea and not the learned, presupposition-filter (“too dead”) that JTL uses.
foh, the Pelagian posted this one:
“Christ says the son came to his senses. Where is the Father? Making that happen? Irresistibly making him alive? No. Just waiting. The dead son (Christ called him dead 2 times) “comes to his senses.” In the same way we can answer JTL’s question —- Christ even says that “dead” people can come to their senses. Scripture defends this idea and not the learned, presupposition-filter (“too dead”) that JTL uses.”
———–Here’s My Response————-
Even if the Father is just waiting to his dead son, it does not automatically tells in the verses that the dead prodigal son was able to enliven himself. FOH is just infusing that thing into the verse. WE ALL KNOW THAT God the Father is omnipotent, Omniscient and He can cause the dead son to become regenerated anytime He wants to. Christ never said in the parable that a dead person can come to Him. It is just the wild imaginations of the Pelagian.
Chapman,
Let me elaborate a bit on my previous post.
The Scripture refers to several people as God-fearing Gentiles, or “worshiper of God”. The Bible speaks regularly about people “doing good works.”
Even a non-believer when he is obeying his parents, obeying the law, being kind, being patient is doing a good thing. He is not “too dead” to do what is a spiritually good thing (the ability to be kind comes from God).
Around this Christmas time we see many people giving money, doing something nice. The Red Cross. Doctors without Borders…. sacrificial living so that others can benefit. These are good things (not good enough to merit heaven, but good). People who are “totally depraved” or “too dead” or all-evil, all-the-time, God-haters could not do these things. If they were “completely spiritually dead” they would not be capable of doing anything good. That is why RH sticks to his position they they are all-wicked, all-the-time, God-haters….doing no good whatsoever.
He understands that if he admits that they can do any one tiny good thing, then that would mean that they could also hear Christ’s voice.
It is just not true —either by Scripture, by common sense, or by human experience —- that those who do not know Christ are incapable of doing anything good, kind, patient.
Why then do Calvinists tell us that these people cannot hear Christ call “Come unto me all who labor and are heavy laden…. and I will give you rest”?
FOH (All),
Ezekiel 11:15-20 (NKJV)….
“Son of man, your brethren, your relatives, your countrymen, and all THE HOUSE OF ISRAEL in its entirety, are those about whom the inhabitants of Jerusalem have said, ‘Get FAR AWAY from the LORD; this land has been given to us as a possession.’ Therefore say, ‘Thus says the Lord GOD: “Although I have cast them (the House of Israel) FAR OFF among the Gentiles, and although I have scattered them among the countries, yet I shall be a little sanctuary for them in the countries where they have gone.” ’ Therefore say, ‘Thus says the Lord GOD: “I will (that’s a promise) gather you (the House of Israel) from the peoples, assemble you from the countries where you have been scattered, and I will give you the land of Israel.”’ And they will go there, and they will take away all its detestable things and all its abominations from there. Then (NOT BEFORE, but AFTER they have returned) I will give them one heart, and I will put a new spirit within them, and take the stony heart out of their flesh, and give them a heart of flesh, that they may walk in My statutes (Torah) and keep My judgments and do them; and they shall be My people, and I will be their God.
Luke 15:20-24 (NKJV)….
And he arose and came to his father. But when he was still A GREAT WAY OFF, his father saw him and had compassion (Hosea 2:23?), and ran and fell on his neck and kissed him. And the son (Israel/Ephraim/Joseph/the former Northern Kingdom) said to him, ‘Father, I have sinned against heaven and in your sight, and am no longer worthy to be called your son.’ “But the father said to his servants, ‘Bring out the best robe and put it on him, and put a ring on his hand and sandals on his feet. And bring the fatted calf here and kill it, and let us eat and be merry; for this my son was dead and is alive again; he was lost and is found.’ And they began to be merry.
Romans 11:15 (NKJV)….
For if their (the House of Israel) being cast away is the reconciling of the world, what will their (the House of Israel) acceptance be BUT LIFE FROM THE DEAD?
Just thought I would share.
Merry Christmas to all my brothers in sisters in Christ!
Good word there, Phillip!
Merry Christmas!
Ed Chapman
FOH, the Pelagian posted this one:
“Why then do Calvinists tell us that these people cannot hear Christ call “Come unto me all who labor and are heavy laden…. and I will give you rest”?”
———–Here’s My Response————
Even if I will agree to your claim that they can hear the call, it won’t still work if there was no legitimate offer given by God to them. The rest of the types of soil was also able to receive the same seed but all of them dies. WHY? BECAUSE IT WAS NOT INTENDED FOR THEM. Only those seeds that were sown to the good soil are the ones that prospered.
FOH,
My point is this:
The WORD of God
Those are written words in the bible. JESUS is also known as The Word of God.
Those words are not the word of man. If they were, the bible would be known as:
The WORD of Man.
So, HOW is that lost sheep found?
HOW do people come to Christ?
The WORD of God. And SOMEONE must bring that WORD of GOD, the LOGOS of God to them.
It is a given that some won’t believe, while others do.
But to make a wild statement that God must use his magic wand to MAKE YOU believe is the most outrageous thing that I have ever heard.
The Jews…ya, they are in a SLUMBER. But I don’t see any proof that Gentiles are in that same slumber.
The Jews are the elect. That means that ALL who God put in this SLUMBER are gonna be saved, even if they die without being woke up.
Gentiles are NOT elect. Therefore, elect and saved, or will be saved are not EQUAL words directed at Gentiles.
The Calvinists are SOOOOOOO CARNAL that they have NO CLUE, AND REJECT THE IDEA that the story of JOSEPH and his BRETHREN is a prophesy of JESUS and the JEWS. To them, it’s just a story about Joseph and his brothers.
Ed Chapman
chapmaned24 writes, “[Calvinists] have NO CLUE, AND REJECT THE IDEA that the story of JOSEPH and his BRETHREN is a prophesy of JESUS and the JEWS. To them, it’s just a story about Joseph and his brothers. ”
Everyone agrees that it is a true story about Joseph and his brothers. Is it more than that? Let;s see if chapman can support his claim that it is a prophecy about Jesus and the Jews.
rhutchin states:
“Everyone agrees that it is a true story about Joseph and his brothers. Is it more than that? Let;s see if chapman can support his claim that it is a prophecy about Jesus and the Jews.”
My response:
Yes, it is indeed MORE than that.
But, I’m NOT GOING TO SUPPORT my claim. It’s SELF evident.
I would ask YOU to READ Genesis 37 thru 50 and ask YOU if YOU can SEE Jesus in there, as you READ everything that Joseph went thru.
But if you can’t see it yourself, then GOOGLE “joseph and his brethren prophesy” and you will find plenty of teachings on it.
But, just by the mere fact that you DON’T, CAN’T, WON’T, AND REFUSE to see it NOW, that just shows that you can’t SPIRITUALLY interpret scripture. It’s all carnal stories to you.
And that is the SOLE reason that I loathe EXPOSITORY preaching.
Jonah prophesied about Jesus. He was a Prophet. That was the purpose of all the books of the PROPHETS in the bible. The TORAH (Genesis thru Deuteronomy) has prophesies of Jesus.
Genesis is where you find Joseph.
Luke 24:27
And beginning at Moses and all the PROPHETS, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.
Luke 24:44
And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in THE LAW OF MOSES, and in the PROPHETS, and in the psalms, CONCERNING ME.
Matthew 12:39
But he answered and said unto them, An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given to it, but the sign of the PROPHET Jonas:
Matthew 16:4
A wicked and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given unto it, but the sign of the PROPHET Jonas. And he left them, and departed.
Luke 11:29
And when the people were gathered thick together, he began to say, This is an evil generation: they seek a sign; and there shall no sign be given it, but the sign of Jonas the PROPHET.
Jonah PROPHESIED about JESUS (Luke 24:27, key words “ALL THE PROPHETS”. Luke 11:29, key word PROPHET)
But if YOU read the book of Jonah, I HIGHLY DOUBT THAT YOU SEE PROPHESY OF JESUS, ALL BECAUSE YOU READ IT IN THE EXPOSITORY FASHION regarding WHAT A BAD MAN JONAH WAS FOR DISOBEYING GOD FOR NOT GOING TO NINEVEH. SMH.
Joseph prophesied about Jesus THRU HIS LIFE actions. And THIS is what Romans talks about regarding the Pharaoh. Pharaoh’s ACTIONS were directed by God so that Moses could be a PROPHESY of Jesus.
God hardened the Pharaoh’s heart in order to establish prophesy of Jesus, and the Pharaoh’s spiritual destiny had NOTHING TO DO WITH ANY OF IT.
My FIRM belief is that the Pharaoh is in heaven with Jesus. But for now, just concentrate on Joseph. Google it, and you will see bible verses parallel charts from various teachings. Even Jews For Jesus has one.
I don’t like church’s that REFUSE to see the spiritual interpretations of scripture, that ONLY RELY on EXPOSITORY. YUCK! ICKY! EWWWW! EXPOSITORY? I CRINGE!
Ed Chapman.
chapmaned24 writes, “But, I’m NOT GOING TO SUPPORT my claim. It’s SELF evident….But, just by the mere fact that you DON’T, CAN’T, WON’T, AND REFUSE to see it NOW, that just shows that you can’t SPIRITUALLY interpret scripture. It’s all carnal stories to you.”
LOL! If a person cannot see what Ed imagines, then that person is defective.
Then, I don’t like church’s that REFUSE to see the spiritual interpretations of scripture, …”
In other words, people ought to understand Scripture as Ed does because Ed just knows that his way is best.
rhutchin,
You state of me:
“LOL! If a person cannot see what Ed imagines, then that person is defective.”
and
“In other words, people ought to understand Scripture as Ed does because Ed just knows that his way is best.”
My response:
Romans 8:6
For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace.
and
2 Corinthians 4:18
While we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen: for the things which are seen are temporal; but the things which are not seen are eternal.
1 Corinthians 3:1
And I, brethren, could not speak unto you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal, even as unto babes in Christ.
———————————————————-
Let me give you a couple examples:
Example 1:
Abraham was promised the following:
LAND and SEEED.
Using the HEBREW SCRIPTURES ONLY, EXPOSITORY PREACHING, What are those promises?
The promised SEED is the CHILDREN of Abraham, thru Isaac, RIGHT? THAT IS CARNAL. That is what EXPOSITORY reveals, using the HEBREW SCRIPTURES ONLY, nothing more than CARNAL history. It does not reveal Jesus at all.
Now, the NT, in Galatians 3, tells us that the promised seed is JESUS. That is what SPIRITUAL interpretation is REVEALED. This gives us an EXAMPLE to NOT read the Hebrew scriptures as JUST a carnal history.
I already gave you an example of Jonah.
——————————————————
Example 2:
Matthew 1:1 (KJV)
The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David…
Matthew 22:41-42 (KJV)
41 While the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them,
42 Saying, What think ye of Christ? whose son is he? They say unto him, The son of David.
*****BASED ON MATTHEW 1:1, THEIR ANSWER IS CORRECT…USING “EXPOSITORY PREACHING”.
Since Jesus is talking in the 3rd person, I’m gonna reword Matthew 22:41-46 in the FIRST PERSON so that it looks like he’s talking about HIMSELF.
Matthew 22:41-46 (First Person, and in SIMPLE English)
Jesus asked the Pharisees, What do you think of ME, WHOSE SON AM I? They responded, The son of David. Jesus retorted, David calls ME Lord, so HOW AM I HIS SON? But no one was able to answer his question, and from that moment on, they didn’t ask him anymore questions.
rhutchin,
The way that Jesus responsded shows that Jesus, as God, CREATED David. But HOW could the Pharisees KNOW THIS using EXPOSITORY preaching. NOTE, if you will, Pharisees were the EXPERTS! The Pharisees did NOT know how to SPIRITUALLY interpret ANYTHING.
The Pharisees were RIGHT by stating that Jesus is the Son of David, Matthew 1:1 CONFIRMS this. And since the ONLY reference that the Jews had is the HEBREW scriptures, Jesus POINTS THEM TO Psalms to EXPLAIN to them that the Christ is LORD, aka God, aka creator of David, NOT JUST THE SON OF DAVID, as Matthew 1:1 confirms.
————————————————————
Another Example:
Abraham was going to CRUCIFY his ONLY (That’s what scripture states, ONLY) son, and Abraham was gonna DO IT, and why? Because Abraham KNEW that God would RESURRECT HIM FROM THE DEAD in order to fulfil his promise that his seed would be thru Isaac.
That is a SPIRITUAL picture of Jesus, too. But how would you know that using expository preaching using the HEBREW SCRIPTURES ONLY?
You CAN’T. But the NT REVEALS these things, and it is a HINT to all of us to RE-READ the Hebrew scritpures and INTERPRET things in a SPIRITUAL MANNER instead of CLINGING to expository carnal interpretations of HISTORY.
Ed Chapman
rhutchin,
In my previous about Matthew 1:1 and Matthew 22:41-46, I want to EXPOUND on that A LITTLE BIT MORE:
Revelation 22:16
I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David
ROOT AND OFFSPING, CREATOR OF DAVID (ROOT), AND SON OF DAVID (OFFSPRING)
Revelation 5:5
And one of the elders saith unto me, Weep not: behold, the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David,
REVELATION REVEALS, HENCE, REVELATION.
FOH writes, “Even a non-believer when he is obeying his parents, obeying the law, being kind, being patient is doing a good thing. He is not “too dead” to do what is a spiritually good thing (the ability to be kind comes from God).”
On first reading this statement, one might think that FOH is equating “good thing” with “spiritually good thing.” But then, he writes, “These are good things (not good enough to merit heaven, but good).” Even Calvinists agree that depraved people can do such “good things.” Calvinists distinguish such “good things” (where “good” is a judgment by the world) from “spiritually good things” where spiritually good things are done to glorify God. For example, “no one can say, “Jesus is Lord,” except by the Holy Spirit.” A person must be indwelt by the Holy Spirit to do good things or, like King Saul, under the control of the Holy Spirit.
Then, “That is why RH sticks to his position they they are all-wicked, all-the-time, God-haters….doing no good whatsoever.”
Here, FOH should have written, “…doing no spiritually good whatsoever.” FOH actually knows this since he did dabble in Calvinism early in his life.
Then, “It is just not true…that those who do not know Christ are incapable of doing anything good, kind, patient.”
Here, FOH should have said, “…anything spiritually good…” Hid earlier Calvinist training seems to be fuzzy.
rhutchin,
I think you are pretty FUZZY on what you define as “SPIRITUALLY” GOOD. I never read anything about “SPIRITUALLY” good things in the Bible.
That’s just a MADE UP phrase.
I just did a word search in the bible for “SPIRITUALLY GOOD”, and there is no verse that supports such a phrase, and not even a verse that includes both words, either.
WHERE do Calvinists come up with such bizzare terminolgy?
Let me ask you a question, rhutchin.
Those ADULTS who NEVER KNEW JESUS…do they get to go to heaven, or not? And if so, WHY AND HOW? And if so, do they GLORIFY GOD by doing DEEDS
chapmaned24 writes, “I think you are pretty FUZZY on what you define as “SPIRITUALLY” GOOD. I never read anything about “SPIRITUALLY” good things in the Bible.
That’s just a MADE UP phrase.”
FOH used the term (but I don’t think he is the first to do so). However, it does help to distinguish between that which the world calls “goof” and that which God calls “good.”
Then, “WHERE do Calvinists come up with such bizzare terminolgy? ”
From verses that distinguish between the spiritual and the worldly (or flesh or material things).
I Corinthians 12 has, “no one can say, “Jesus is Lord,” except by the Holy Spirit.” Contrasting this is the description given by Paul in Romans 3 of those who do not seek God – none of them does good (those things counted as good by God0. In Galatians 5, Paul contrasts the works of the flesh with the works of the spirit. In John 3–
19 “And this is the judgment, that the light is come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the light; for their deeds were evil.
20 “For everyone who does evil hates the light, and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed.
21 “But he who practices the truth comes to the light, that his deeds may be manifested as having been wrought in God.”
In addition, we have the contrast between the wicked and the righteous in the Proverbs.
Given the misunderstanding about what is “good” in God’s eyes and that which the world says is “good,” the distinction FOH made seems good to me.
rhutchin,
I’m always FLABBERGASTED at the way you Calvinists INTERPRET what Romans 3 is discussing.
My golly goodness, all Romans 3 is discussing is the CONTRAST beween the Law of Moses, aka the OLD COVENANT, and the LAW OF CHRIST, the NEW Covenant.
Either Righteousness THRU THE LAW, aka SELF RIGHTEOUSNESS, telling people that you can EARN your way to eternal life,
—-OR
You can DITCH THE LAW, AND JUST FOLLOW JESUS.
Either the JEWS righteousness THRU THE LAW, WHICH, I MIGHT ADD THAT GOD TOLD THEM TO OBEY, KNOWING THAT NO ONE CAN or, God’s righteousness WITHOUT THE LAW.
But you Calvinists make it say things that it NEVER STATES.
Sure, it states that NO ONE this, and NO ONE that, but it’s discussing those UNDER THE LAW OF MOSES, the self righteous seekers, BY THE LAW. THEY, the JEWS are the ones Romans 3 is discussing.
NOT PEOPLE IN GENERAL, which you make it out to be.
Ugggghhhhh…you Calvinists really frustrate me.
chapmaned24 writes, “But you Calvinists make it say things that it NEVER STATES. Sure, it states that NO ONE this, and NO ONE that,…”
LOL!!! Ed proves that context matters as he then tries to insert context when he says,
“it’s discussing those UNDER THE LAW OF MOSES, the self righteous seekers, BY THE LAW. THEY, the JEWS are the ones Romans 3 is discussing..”
Poor Ed. v9 tells us, “for we have already charged that both Jews and Greeks are all under sin;” Paul’s point is that there is no real difference between the Jew and the gentile for “…all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God…” So, Paul is actually talking about people in general whether Jew or gentile – “All have turned away, they have together become worthless; there is no-one who does good, not even one.” One need only look at Paul’s use of the term, “all,” in Romans with his reference to Jew and Greek. It is no wonder that Ed does not like expository preaching, as it does not allow him to be as creative as he wants.
rhutchin,
Jews and Gentils are all UNDER SIN, but Gentiles are NOT “UNDER THE LAW OF MOSES”.
The KEY WORD in Romans 3 is NOT “SIN”.
The KEY WORD in Romans 3 is “RIGHTEOUSNESS”, and how THAT can be obtained.
The Jews seek it UNDER THE LAW OF MOSES, whereas the Gentiles obtain it UNDER FAITH.
Law of Moses vs. NO LAW OF MOSES.
Your famous “NO ONE” can obtain in under the Law of Moses. NO ONE under the law of Moses does good. NO ONE under the law of Moses seeks God, and why? Because they are TOO BUSY stumbling at THE LAW OF MOSES. And that is the WHOLE TOPIC of verses 11-12, those UNDER THE LAW OF MOSES, which is JEWS ONLY. Gentiles have NEVER been under the law of Moses.
But, Romans 3 is NOT THE END OF THE LETTER. It goes on in Romans 4, discussing the same subject about LAW vs. NO LAW. Romans 5, 6, and 7 also continues the same exact topic of LAW vs. NO LAW. Romans 2 also.
And therefore, it IS JEWS UNDER THE LAW vs. GENTILES NOT UNDER THE LAW.
But…you seem to think that “NO ONE” pertains to EVERYONE, or “ALL PEOPLE”. NO! “NO ONE” has a context of THOSE UNDER THE LAW. NO ONE UNDER THE LAW CAN OBTAIN RIGHTEOUSNESS.
I’m flabbergasted at how Calvinists CAN’T SEE.
Ed Chapman
chapmaned24 writes, “I’m flabbergasted at how Calvinists CAN’T SEE.”
Romans 3 –
9 What shall we conclude then? Are we any better? Not at all! We have already made the charge that Jews and Gentiles alike are all under sin.
10 As it is written: “There is no-one righteous, not even one;
11 there is no-one who understands, no-one who seeks God…
rhutchin,
You REQUOTE Romans 3:9-11, BUT YOU DIDN’T READ THE:
REST OF THE STORY
Which SHOWS what I indicating, therefore, I stand by my statement that verses 10-12 is discussing JEWS UNDER THE LAW OF MOSES ONLY.
The FOLLOWING were RIGHTEOUS and SEEKING GOD!
Genesis 7:1
And the Lord said unto Noah, Come thou and all thy house into the ark; for thee have I seen righteous before me in this generation.
Genesis 15:6
And he believed in the Lord; and he counted it to him for righteousness.
Matthew 13:17
For verily I say unto you, That many prophets and righteous men have desired to see those things which ye see,
Matthew 23:35
That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar.
Luke 1:6
And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless.
Exodus 33:7
And Moses took the tabernacle, and pitched it without the camp, afar off from the camp, and called it the Tabernacle of the congregation. And it came to pass, that every one which sought the Lord went out unto the tabernacle of the congregation, which was without the camp.
2 Chronicles 14:7
Therefore he said unto Judah, Let us build these cities, and make about them walls, and towers, gates, and bars, while the land is yet before us; because we have sought the Lord our God, we have sought him, and he hath given us rest on every side. So they built and prospered.
2 Chronicles 15:4
But when they in their trouble did turn unto the Lord God of Israel, and sought him, he was found of them.
2 Chronicles 15:15
And all Judah rejoiced at the oath: for they had sworn with all their heart, and sought him with their whole desire; and he was found of them: and the Lord gave them rest round about.
2 Chronicles 26:5
And he sought God in the days of Zechariah, who had understanding in the visions of God: and as long as he sought the Lord, God made him to prosper.
Psalm 34:4
I sought the Lord, and he heard me, and delivered me from all my fears.
Psalm 77:2
In the day of my trouble I sought the Lord: my sore ran in the night, and ceased not: my soul refused to be comforted.
Chapman,
I’m afraid you could quote hundreds of verses about “seeking,” people “being righteous,” “God-fearing Gentiles,” “worshipers of God,” etc…. and it will have no effect.
Our Calvinist friends insist that their out-of-context interpretation of Romans 3:11 is the only filter. Hundreds of verses must bend to their way of interpreting that verse. Viper venom, shedding blood with our feet, mouth are sepulchers, and the surrounding metaphors —- context does not matter.
It does not matter to them what Paul’s point was in Romans 3.
It does not matter what Christ’s point was —-or the context— in John 6:44.
Any fraction of a verse —- pieced together with another fraction. Fine. As long as they can get their way back to the doctrine that Mary-worshiping Augustine set out before them. That is all that counts.
FOH,
You had said:
“Any fraction of a verse —- pieced together with another fraction. Fine. As long as they can get their way back to the doctrine that Mary-worshiping Augustine set out before them. That is all that counts.”
My response: It always makes me wonder if Calvinists ACTUALLY read the Bible at all, with the exception of their PET verses.
Yep, if the Catholics had REFORMED themselves as Calvin wanted them to REFORM, then their HOME OFFICE would STILL BE IN ROME, and they’d still be wearing them weird religious garments, dresses for men, with a dunce cap!
But I have even another one for them:
Romans 10:13
For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.
Let’s go WAY WAY WAY BACK to the BEGINNING!
Genesis 4:26
…then began men to call upon the name of the Lord.
Genesis 12:8
And he removed from thence unto a mountain on the east of Bethel, and pitched his tent, having Bethel on the west, and Hai on the east: and there he builded an altar unto the Lord, and called upon the name of the Lord.
Genesis 26:25
And he builded an altar there, and called upon the name of the Lord, and pitched his tent there: and there Isaac’s servants digged a well.
Psalm 116:4
Then called I upon the name of the Lord; O Lord, I beseech thee, deliver my soul.
Psalm 116:13
I will take the cup of salvation, and call upon the name of the Lord.
Psalm 116:17
I will offer to thee the sacrifice of thanksgiving, and will call upon the name of the Lord.
Lamentations 3:55
I called upon thy name, O Lord, out of the low dungeon.
Zephaniah 3:9
For then will I turn to the people a pure language, that they may all call upon the name of the Lord, to serve him with one consent.
Yessir Chapman…
Let’s even go a bit farther back.
Gen 4:6 Then the Lord said to Cain, “Why are you angry? Why is your face downcast? 7 If you do what is right, will you not be accepted? But if you do not do what is right, sin is crouching at your door; it desires to have you, but you must rule over it.”
——–
A. God is saying to Cain “why are you angry?” in a sort of “this should be clear to you” way. No mystery. No special ability. Just do it Cain!
B. God says “if you do right” meaning….. he CAN do right. Why would a deterministic-God EVER say “if you”? Cain could have done right.
What else would someone read of this (I mean expect a Calvinist who only sees what he wants).
C. God tells him— do right, accepted…. do wrong…. not accepted.
D. God tells him “sin in crouching…. but you must rule over i!” Because he CAN rule over it! God is telling him he can. Able did.
Calvinism denies all this…. once again, rendering clear readings of the Scripture impossible.
FOH writes, “B. God says “if you do right” meaning….. he CAN do right. Why would a deterministic-God EVER say “if you”? Cain could have done right.
What else would someone read of this (I mean expect a Calvinist who only sees what he wants).”
Now, explain why Cain refused to do right.
Chapman:
You mentioned Genesis. Many times I have used the Cain & Abel example.
No answer ever comes from a Calvinist. This passage makes no sense to them…. at all. They do not learn from it or let it teach them.
They simply apply deterministic logic and say Abel did right cuz he was decreed to do so (robotically). Cain refused to do right cuz he was decreed to sin (robotically). Karma, Fate, Qadr.
So, we learn nothing. Do what you are decreed to do. Cain did. God wanted him to sin says Calvin. Period. No need to study or to learn.
Now, Calvinists unwilling to dialog on the Scriptures, just take shots across the bow and say “Then why did Cain sin?”
Anyone who has children has no trouble with this passage. Why do our born-again kids disobey? Why do our pre-saved children obey?
For the Calvinist ….. robots…. decrees. Simple.
For the rest of us…. who choose each day to sin or not…. we do not offer this unscriptural answer.
In the Word, we see non-believers do good things…. sometimes.
In the Word, we see believers do evil things…. sometimes.
Chalking it all up to “God’s decree” literally makes God the author of all sin.
Chalking it all up to “God’s creation of personal humans (who can commune with Him)” makes sense of a world where God wants a personal relationship with His creation. In order to have a personal relationship with His creation— He created in a way that man has a choice.
So…. the biblical, simple answer for why Cain sins is choice (to sin or not….but he chose to sin). The biblical, simple answer for why Abel chooses to do right is choice (to sin or not….but he chose to obey). That makes sense of the thousands of passages that urge both believers and non-believers to do right.
Only cynical Calvinists will say that Cain —although warned by God, and told by God that he could choose to obey— sinned BECAUSE God made him…. God was pleased to decree it before time…. but then tells him not to sin!
Calvinism’s message to Cain: God tells you not to sin. God says you can choose right. God says…. do it! But then God makes you sin!
Good news!
FOH writes, “the biblical, simple answer for why Cain sins is choice (to sin or not….but he chose to sin). The biblical, simple answer for why Abel chooses to do right is choice (to sin or not….but he chose to obey). ”
To this, all agree. The issue is to explain what factors contributed to each result.
Then, “Only cynical Calvinists will say that Cain —although warned by God, and told by God that he could choose to obey— sinned BECAUSE God made him…. God was pleased to decree it before time…. but then tells him not to sin!”
God decreed that Cain would be corrupt because of Adam’s sin. God then decreed that a corrupt Cain sin – because God did not intervene to keep Cain from sin.
Then, “Calvinism’s message to Cain: God tells you not to sin. God says you can choose right. God says…. do it! But then God makes you sin! ”
By “makes” we understand that God could have prevented your sin but chose not to do so.
rhutchin,
You asked of B,
“Now, explain why Cain refused to do right.”
He was JEALOUS of his brother. It wasn’t a MAGIC ACT of God.
chapmaned24 writes, “You asked of B, “Now, explain why Cain refused to do right.”
He was JEALOUS of his brother. ”
That may be true, but why did Cain deliberately choose to disobey God? It’s one thing to hate your brother; it’s another to hate God – isn’t it?
Then, “It wasn’t a MAGIC ACT of God.”
No one said it was.
chapmaned24 writes, “But I have even another one for them:
Romans 10:13
For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.”
And as verified elsewhere as you note, some call upon the name of the Lord and some do not. The issue is still to sort out the difference between the two. Here the Calvinist cites Philippians 1, “He who began a good work in you…” together with John 6, ““No one can come to Me, unless the Father who sent Me draws him;” and John 6, “All that the Father gives Me shall come to Me…” and concludes that those who call on the name of the Lord do so consequent to God doing something in them.
rhutchin,
You said to me:
“And as verified elsewhere as you note, some call upon the name of the Lord and some do not. The issue is still to sort out the difference between the two. Here the Calvinist cites Philippians 1, “He who began a good work in you…” together with John 6, ““No one can come to Me, unless the Father who sent Me draws him;” and John 6, “All that the Father gives Me shall come to Me…” and concludes that those who call on the name of the Lord do so consequent to God doing something in them.”
My response:
Oh, no, there buddy! You aren’t getting off that easy with me!
YOU said, time and time and time and time again, NO ONE SEEKS GOD, NO ONE IS RIGHTEOUS, NO NOT ONE!
I showed you a complete list of what the Bible said in NUMEROUS places about those who are righteous, ESPECIALLY ABRAHAM, and those who were seeking God, ESPECIALLY ABRAHAM.
So, you REVERT back to your famous NO ONE, again, and again, and again, and again.
But just like I keep harping on, YOU NEVER TAKE THINGS INTO THE CONTEXT OF THE COMPLETE STORY, from the time of Abraham.
JEWISH historical CONTEXT is definately IGNORED by you.
In Hebrews 9, it states:
“It is appointed unto men ONCE TO DIE, then after that, the judgement”.
So, judgement comes AFTER you die, NOT BEFORE, right?
Did you ever hear of the word REMNENT?
Jesus was talking to Jews about Jews. The Elect are Jews ONLY. God blinded the Jews to NOT SEE JESUS, except for the REMNENT.
And BECAUSE God blinded the Jews, HE WILL UNBLIND ALL ALL ALL ALL ALL of the Jews that he blinded.
Some DURING THEIR LIFETIME, called REMNENT. Others AFTER THEY DIE.
They obtain mercey ALL BECAUSE GOD BLINDED THEM, and God saves them.
Which ones OF THOSE does he not save?
John 9:39-41 (KJV)
And Jesus said, For judgment I am come into this world, that they which see not might see; and that they which see might be made blind.
And some of the Pharisees which were with him heard these words, and said unto him, Are we blind also?
Jesus said unto them, If ye were blind, ye should have no sin: but now ye say, We see; therefore your sin remaineth.
NOTE: The last sentence: IF YOU WERE BLIND, YOU SHOULD HAVE “NO” SIN, BUT SINCE YOU CLAIM TO SEE, YOUR SIN REMAINS.
NO SIN, NO SIN, NO SIN, NO SIN.
My point, Jesus, IN YOUR FAMOUS “NO ONE” scenarios, is discussing the REMNENT of Jews that will believe, IN THEIR OWN LIFETIME. The rest OF THE JEWS will be saved when God unblinds them, and those Jews he won’t save, are the ones who CLAIM that they can see.
Gentiles have nothing to do with the conversation of your famous, “NO ONE”. The conversation was TO JEWS ONLY, about Jews only.
For Jesus did NOT come but for the lost sheep of the House of Israel.
He did not come for the lost sheep of the House of the Gentiles.
Ed Chapman
chapmaned24 writes, “YOU said, time and time and time and time again, NO ONE SEEKS GOD, NO ONE IS RIGHTEOUS, NO NOT ONE!”
Actually, this is taken from Romans 3.
Then, “My point, Jesus, IN YOUR FAMOUS “NO ONE” scenarios, is discussing the REMNENT of Jews that will believe, IN THEIR OWN LIFETIME.”
In Romans 3, we read–
9 What shall we conclude then? Are we any better? Not at all! We have already made the charge that Jews and Gentiles alike are all under sin.
10 As it is written: “There is no-one righteous, not even one;
In reading, “We have already made the charge that Jews and Gentiles alike are all under sin. As it is written: “There is no-one righteous, not even one;” doesn’t context tell us that both Jews and gentiles are in view?
Chapman,
There are a three things Calvinists do with Romans 3.
A. They will always, always, always lift the verses out of context. Never will they quote the full passage that goes on like this….
————————–
All…..
13 “Their throats are open graves;
their tongues practice deceit.”
“The poison of vipers is on their lips.”
14 “Their mouths are full of cursing and bitterness.”
15 “Their feet are swift to shed blood;
16 ruin and misery mark their ways,
————————
This passage (3:10-11) is used to say that all men are sin-all-the-time God-haters.
Anyone can see that “all people” do not have “the poison of vipers on their lips.”
Something other than that “all men are sin-all-the-time God-haters” is being taught here. But they will not look at the context.
B. They ignore verse 20. We are not declared righteous by works of the law…. but some of those “works of the law” can (and are!) done. Meaning… obviously that some people do some good things, some of the time. They are not sin-all-the-time God-haters.
(Romans 3:20) Therefore no one will be declared righteous in God’s sight by the works of the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of our sin.
C. They limit the work of Christ. These “good works” of men (sounds like they are capable of some good works, not just God-hating) are not enough to be declared righteous. That is why Paul goes on and shows how one in declared righteous if not by works. (Switching to Calvinist ESV….)
(Romans 3:22) …the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction: 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, 25 whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God’s righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. 26 It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.
To the average reader of God’s Word, this passage is showing that all men are equally guilty before God (no sinless advantage for anyone).
Even though they CAN do good works, that is not enough (how is that God-hating all the time?)
It says “through faith”…. “to be received by faith” …. “the one who has faith in Jesus.”
This is why all people who come to Christ do it by faith, not works. Who can have this faith?
“Come unto me all who labor and are heavy laden and I will give you rest….. “
FOH,
I’m seeing a trend in what you laid out here. And since Calvinists wanted the Catholic church to REFORM, this shows an error in their usage of the word, WORKS, which is what LUTHER got wrong as well.
Romans 4 is about works. James 2 is about works.
But Romans 4 works is a discussion of trying to earn eternal life thru the obeying of the law.
Abraham didn’t have the law, so how can be work?
James 2 is not discussing the law at all. James is discussing LIVING WHAT YOU BELIEVE.
Abraham believed that God would raise Isaac from the dead, because God promised Abraham seed thru Isaac, so Abraham had no problem crucifying Isaac. He lived his faith, and that is works that James discusses.
It also is discussing LOVE, which is an action word, not a feeling of emotion. Do is works. Love is good works.
And lastly, faith is not a work. If it was, it would be one of the 613 commandments of…THE LAW.
Ed Chapman
Chapman,
I dont know if you know many Calvinists, but I do.
Once I start to engage them about faith, it takes them no time to say “The faith you are talking about FOH is works. If man can have that faith, then it is works.”
The second thing they say is, “If you have can have that faith then you earned your salvation.”
Hummm. Romans 4 anyone?
Paul takes great pain to show that faith is not a work.
Hebrews 11 gives a list of names of people who had faith.
It really goes beyond silliness to say that God is going to list by name in His eternal Word a bunch of people who had faith…. and yet declare that it means nothing. They were given that faith and made to irresistibly use it. So what is the passage about then?
Only when you come to the Bible with the answers can you read into that chapter a Calvinistic meaning.
FOH,
Yep, and what I’ve been showing all along is the distinction between the law of works vs the law of faith, for which Paul discusses from Romans 2 to 7 very heavily. But not only that, but Galatians as well. And others, too.
Romans 4 is the best of all.
Abraham is the best example, cuz he had no law that states that he can’t sleep with his fathers daughter. But he had a son of promise with his sister. And was declared righteous by the mere fact that he BELIEVED God. Not that he WORKED the works of the law, cuz there was no such thing as works of the law at that time. There was no law. And what does Romans 4 and 5 state regarding NO LAW?
It states that, even tho you have sinned, SIN is not imputed.
God never once told Abraham that it was a sin to have sex with your sister. He didn’t have KNOWLEDGE, which is a prerequisite to have sin imputed to you.
The law is a barrier to faith. They are against each other. They are distinct. Faith cannot be a work, as it is not included in the phrase, works of the law.
Has Calvinists showed where faith is in the law to prove that faith is a work?
They can’t. It’s not there.
The NT states that the law is NOT OF FAITH.
So how can they declare that faith is a work?
They reword Ephesians to state that faith is a gift, rather than seeing that grace is the gift, and the means by which we get it is by BELIEVING.
God does not impute belief.
Sin or righteousness is the ONLY two things that can be imputed to a human being. Faith can’t. Belief can’t.
It’s either sin, or righteousness. Nothing more.
Ed Chapman
chapmaned24 writes, “And lastly, faith is not a work. If it was, it would be one of the 613 commandments of…THE LAW. ”
To go down one more level – the exercise of faith given by God is not work; the exercise of faith with which a person is born is work.
rhutchin,
You had said:
“to go down one more level – the exercise of faith given by God is not work; the exercise of faith with which a person is born is work.”
My response:
Faith is NOT given by God. Grace is given by God, THRU “YOUR OWN” FAITH.
And
Work is WORKS OF THE LAW [of MOSES], not the excersize of faith. Faith is NOT A WORK at all. The word WORK “ONLY” pertains to THE LAW.
Abraham didn’t have THE LAW. Romans 4.
James discusses works, too. But those works are LIVING WHAT YOU BELIEVE, and Love Thy Neighbor.
Romans 3:27
Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith.
The law of faith is NOT IN THE LAW OF MOSES. The law of Moses is WORKS of the law.
Romans 9:32
Wherefore? Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumblingstone;
Oh, ya, HERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN JEW AND GENTILE!
Galatians 2:16
Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.
Galatians 3:2
This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?
Galatians 3:5
He therefore that ministereth to you the Spirit, and worketh miracles among you, doeth he it by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?
Ed Chapman
chapmaned24 writes, “Faith is NOT given by God.”
On this point, we disagree.
rhutchin,
Yes, I know. But why?
Hebrews 11:1 states what faith is.
And when you get done dissecting:
Faith is KNOWING that you are going to get what you are waiting for.
KNOWING is a key word.
Do Calvinists really KNOW that they are saved?
I know that the words, Elect, Saved, Chosen, etc. are all synonymous words to Calvinists, so I will rephrase FOR a Calvinist:
Do YOU KNOW that YOU specifically are ELECT, or Chosen? Or, are you only guessing?
Ed Chapman
chapmaned24 asks, “Do YOU KNOW that YOU specifically are ELECT, or Chosen? Or, are you only guessing?”
The question is not unique to Calvinists but applies to all believers. The believer agrees with Paul, “I know whom I have believed and I am convinced that He is able to guard what I have entrusted to Him until that day.” Then John, “we know that the Son of God has come, and has given us understanding, in order that we might know Him who is true, and we are in Him who is true, in His Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God and eternal life.”
So, what about the 7th Day Adventists, Mormons, and JW’s that believe those same words that you quoted? All who profess to be Christians believe those quoted words. We just don’t believe in your comprehension of quoted scripture. So, those Christians who adamately disregard Calvinism, flat out, like me, what is my spiritual destiny when I die, according to your belief system?
I would agree with much, but would say that there once WAS a difference between Jew and Gentile. Now, with access to God through Jesus, all are on the same footing, and all will be judged by faith or lack thereof – male, female, Jew, Gentile, slave and free. All are sinners, and none will be judged righteous based on works. Those Jews who chose to remain under the Law (refusing to trust in God’s promise of life simply in response to faith) will be judged by the Law, and found wanting. All have been commanded to come to God through faith, and there is no longer any distinction between races of men. The only basis upon which God will judge men is their faith in him and his promises. Anyone yet clinging to the religion of Judaism or any other ‘ism’ will be found wanting in faith. We have different interpretations of what is meant by Israel post 70 A.D.
TS00,
Well, this is where I gotta part ways with you a bit.
When we understand that God blinded the Jews, then we know that God gives the blind mercy whom he blinded. They are in what is called, slumber. There is, however, a remnant that God healed the blind… And that was prophesy. Jesus explains this as SPIRITUAL blindness, because the Pharisees asks Jesus, “Are we blind also? Jesus responds, “IF YOU WERE blind, you should have NO SIN, but since you CLAIM TO SEE, your sins remains.
The blind will not have their sins imputed. They are charged, but won’t be prosecuted.
The phrase about no Jew/Gentiles Are those who are “IN CHRIST”.
The blind Jews to us Gentiles are used as a spiritual example of what not to do. They are for a purpose to us Gentiles . They are a light to the Gentiles , Gentiles are not a light to them.
Romans 2:14-16. They don’t know God. They don’t know Jesus. They know nothing about faith. They know nothing about works. They may not even know anything about life after death.
All they got is their conscience based on the law written on their hearts.
God judges those people based on their conscience, AFTER they die. For it is appointed unto men once to die, then after that, judgment.
So there is differences that we must acknowledge.
God is telling us thru and thru that you can’t earn your way to eternal life by being OBEDIENT to God thru the law.
Didn’t God tell them to obey?
They can’t. Can you? Of course not. But if you could, then God owes you a wage for working. And that wage is eternal life. But since the law law exposes sin, the wage is death.
But that death only comes to those who REJECT.
You are not held accountable for what you don’t know.
How can they believe of no one is sent?
Happy are the feet…
Ed Chapman
You’re right; here’s where we part ways. 😉
See, I knew I was right about something.
Seriously tho, you are not held accountable for you don’t know.
When Joseph REVEALED himself to his brothers, he showed mercy. That is prophesy of JESUS.
Ed Chapman
Joseph is a portrayal of Jesus. Joseph’s brothers are a portrayal of the Jews. It’s prophesy of the relationship of Jesus and the Jews.
Joseph toyed with them for a while.
After Joseph REVEALED himself, his brothers showed sorrow for what they did. But Joseph did not punish them, even tho he had power to do so.
There are many prophesies about this, too, regarding Jesus and the Jews.
This interpretation makes all of Paul’s teaching in Romans meaningless. All of his hyperbole about wishing himself condemned in their place was just a game? If it was all about national Israel, Paul wasted a lot of words saying the exact opposite. Just kidding, ha ha. Of course no Jew can ever be lost. Which was the exact thinking of the Jews that he so carefully unpacked and discounted. I have never seen anyone who believes as you do offer a logical explanation for all of Paul’s teaching. They simply run with their interpretation of ‘all Israel will be saved’ and never ponder how pointless that makes all of the rest of Paul’s teaching in Romans. Pretty much what the Calvinists do. 😉 Grab one phrase and insist it has only one possible meaning, while ignoring the countless verses it contradicts. All of apastolic teaching asserts that there is no longer any distinction between Jew and gentile. I simply cannot fathom anyone recreating the separation that all of the apostles labored so diligently to tear down.
Not at all. It confirms Paul’s teachings. Romans 9-11 talks about this explicitly. Mercy. Why mercy? Has God cast away the Jews? God forbid. All Israel will be saved. This is not to be spiritualized. He talks about the Jews, not the Gentiles. I don’t have time, cuz I’m working. But if you think I’m the only one saying what I do, then that tells me that you aren’t listening to all of Christendom. Reformers aren’t the only sect, ya know. I don’t conform to LUTHER, I don’t conform to Calvin, I don’t conform to Catholics. I’m not a JW, Mormon, or 7th Day Adventist, either. I don’t rely on church fathers to dictate orthodoxy. I didn’t get the memo regarding what dead people decided for me.
When I get a chance, I will go over this with you. Late tonight or tomorrow.
But I will leave you with…how do you spiritualize the word Israel? We are not the children of Jacob. We are sons of Abraham. Jesus is the promised seed. Jacob [Israel] comes after Isaac. Jacob is Israel. Isaac isn’t Israel. Abraham isn’t Israel. Israel, BIBLICALLY DEFINED, is, struggles with God, and PREVAILS. Paul was not discussing Gentiles as Israel.
Ed Chapman
I am quite familiar with your viewpoint on some future, distinct work of God towards national Israel, and am aware that it is more prevalent than my own. It is the viewpoint that I was brought up on, along with most of modern Christendom. Nonetheless, I find it neither logical nor compelling. I do not wish to derail the thread, and I am aware of your strong opinions on the subject, so we needn’t discuss it further. I was simply offering up an alternative interpretation to what you tend to state as unquestionable ‘fact’.
It is somewhat confusing, but in my opinion, the key to understanding Paul throughout Romans is his statement that not all who are of Israel are Israel, even though the word is used interchangeably. In other words, national ‘Israel’ is not the ‘Israel’ with which God is ultimately concerned, as Paul demonstrates from their own history. There were frequently unbelieving and rebellious Israelites who did not receive a share in the promised blessings of Israel due to their stubborn unbelief. God did indeed love this people for the sake of the fathers, and patiently endured what a stubborn, rebellious and stiffnecked people they were. He gave them every chance to repent, and, as Paul, the other apostles and many converted Jews illustrate, there is no irresistible ‘blinding’ that happened to all Israel that remains to this day.
Paul’s teaching grants at least the reasonable possibility that as ‘not all who are of Israel are Israel’ that ‘not all who are of Israel’ will be saved, but only those who are the true, spiritual, believing ‘Israel’. We can agree to disagree, but I do believe it is proper to put forth this alternative explanation as certainly plausible, and, IMO, more in accordance with the significant teaching that there is no longer to be considered a difference between Jew and Gentile. I am not asking you to agree with my opinion; merely to respect it as a reasonable alternative to your own. I affirm that all who believe will be saved, but reject any irresistible determinism on God’s part, be it toward Israel or Calvinism’s ‘elect’
Hey, T,
Well, our weather in my area has been terrible the last couple weeks, and so because of that, I’m working some overtime today. One man’s misery is my paycheck.
Anyway, I do, at least wish to present my case, and it will be short. But can’t now.
Talk later.
Ed Chapman
TS00,
OK, I’m back.
You had said:
“I am quite familiar with your viewpoint on some future, distinct work of God towards national Israel, and am aware that it is more prevalent than my own. It is the viewpoint that I was brought up on, along with most of modern Christendom.”
My response:
I’m not so sure that you are familiar with my viewpoint. I haven’t given it yet. It’s NOT QUITE on the SAME level as what you may have been brought up on. It migiht be, but it might not be, too.
To begin, I just want to say that I, too, DO NOT believe in ANY sort of “irresistible” whatevers. Having said that…
What I see is that Jesus REVEALS himself, and they BELIEVE ON THEIR OWN FREE WILL ACCORD.
Since Jesus said that he came not but for the lost sheep of the House of Israel..hmmmmm.
What about the lost sheep of Israel of PRIOR GENERATIONS? I guess they were not lost? The only lost sheep of the house of Israel was THAT generation? Or, was previous generations not sheep at all? Or, not his sheep?
Ya, I have heard it before that they are ALL BURNING IN HELL!
Also, all of the GENTILES are BURNING IN HELL…except those believe in Jesus, who didn’t get here til about 2000 years ago.
I LOVE to ask the WHO, WHAT, WHERE, WHY, and HOW questions, and it’s FUN researching it.
I’m not a fan of dead people deciding FOR me what I am to believe, cuz the Bereans didn’t just take Paul’s word for it. They researched it in order to confirm what he said.
By the way, the Bereans were Jews, otherwise, how would they have access to HEBREW SCRIPTURES? Gentiles NOT ALLOWED in Synagogues.
Do you acknowledge that God blinded the Jews from the git-go?
Deuteronomy 29:4 (NIRV)
But to this day the Lord hasn’t given you a mind that understands. He hasn’t given you eyes that see. He hasn’t given you ears that hear.
Isaiah 29:10 (NIRV)
The Lord has made you fall into a deep sleep.
He has closed the eyes of your prophets.
He has covered the heads of your seers so they can’t see.
Romans 11:8 (NIRV)
It is written,
“God made it hard for them to understand.
He gave them eyes that could not see.
He gave them ears that could not hear.
And they are still like that today.”
A couple of words to concentrate on:
1. UNBELIEF
2. MERCY
Paul, talking about HIMSELF:
1 Timothy 1:13
Who was before a blasphemer, and a persecutor, and injurious: but I obtained mercy, because I did it ignorantly in unbelief.
Jesus REVEALED himself to Paul.
WHO ARE YOU LORD? I AM JESUS, THE ONE YOU PERSECUTE
Paul obtained MERCY because he was IGNORANT IN UNBELIEF.
Is Paul any different than the ISRAEL-ITES who are in UNBELIEF?
Romans 11:30
For as ye in times past have not believed God, yet have now obtained mercy through their unbelief:
WE GET MERCY “THRU THRU THRU” their unbelief…and why should they NOT get mercy, since God is the one who put blinders on their eyes in the first place?
Hebrews 3:19
So we see that they could not enter in because of unbelief.
************************Romans 11:32******************
For God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all.
Again, Paul got MERCY because of IGNORANCE in UNBELIEF.
Why is Paul given this mercy, yet others won’t? Cuz God FAVORED him over others who also do things in IGNORANCE IN UNBELIEF?
Joseph REVEALED himself to his brothers. They didn’t know WHO HE WAS before he revealed himself. It is said that he revealed himself by showing his circumcision PROVING it.
Zechariah 12:10
And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn.
Why would THEY mourn?
Revelation 1:7
Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him. Even so, Amen.
Jeremiah 31:35-37 King (KJV)
35 Thus saith the Lord, which giveth the sun for a light by day, and the ordinances of the moon and of the stars for a light by night, which divideth the sea when the waves thereof roar; The Lord of hosts is his name:
36 If those ordinances depart from before me, saith the Lord, then the seed of Israel also shall cease from being a nation before me for ever.
37 Thus saith the Lord; If heaven above can be measured, and the foundations of the earth searched out beneath, I will also cast off all the seed of Israel for all that they have done, saith the Lord.
Jeremiah 33:20-26 King James Version (KJV)
20 Thus saith the Lord; If ye can break my covenant of the day, and my covenant of the night, and that there should not be day and night in their season;
21 Then may also my covenant be broken with David my servant, that he should not have a son to reign upon his throne; and with the Levites the priests, my ministers.
22 As the host of heaven cannot be numbered, neither the sand of the sea measured: so will I multiply the seed of David my servant, and the Levites that minister unto me.
23 Moreover the word of the Lord came to Jeremiah, saying,
24 Considerest thou not what this people have spoken, saying, The two families which the Lord hath chosen, he hath even cast them off? thus they have despised my people, that they should be no more a nation before them.
25 Thus saith the Lord; If my covenant be not with day and night, and if I have not appointed the ordinances of heaven and earth;
26 Then will I cast away the seed of Jacob and David my servant, so that I will not take any of his seed to be rulers over the seed of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob: for I will cause their captivity to return, and have mercy on them.
God desires us to have MERCY, and we treat the Jews with CONTEMPT?
The following is just my personal opinion, but I’ve seen church’s badmouth the Jews…and Baptist church’s are guilty of that, too. Paul warns us Gentiles of being high minded. Gentiles seem to think that we can MAKE them see, just by giving them the gospel.
But they can’t see unless God unblinds them. Peter, a Jew, was the apostle to the Jews. I don’t recall any Gentiles who converted a Jew.
I spoke to a Jew online once, and he considers our “giving them the gospel” no different than genocide of the Jews.
I had to take a step back for a moment, and think…why am I interfering in God’s plans? Then it hit me. Thru the UNBELIEVING JEWS, we Gentiles see Jesus CLEARLY…if we look….JOSEPH AND HIS BROTHERS…THE REQUIRED FEASTS…JONAH…ISAIAH…GENESIS…the CUSTOMS of the Jews…all of those things and MUCH MORE reveals JESUS to US lowly Gentiles, thru the blind Jews.
I can’t talk bad about the Jews JUST BECAUSE they don’t see Jesus as Messiah. They will…in time…and they will mourn. And God will heal them. He promised to!
Ed Chapman
I would have to embrace Universalism to embrace your viewpoint, and, frankly, I would be thrilled should it prove to be true. 🙂 If, on some future day Jesus opens the eyes of all men, who will finally understand who he is, and freely receive what he offers, I will be exceeding glad!
However, apart from supernatural determinism, the odds of ‘ALL’ with a drop of Jacob’s blood believing in a revealed Jesus, but not ‘ALL’ other men seems extremely small. Would you include in this number of ‘saved’ those Israelites who perished in the desert, or were swallowed up by the earth in response to their disobedience? Would you exclude the Egyptians or other foreigners who converted to Judaism and lived as members of the nation of Israel? I tend to suspect that either willfully or inadvertently, translation and political issues have added to our confusion in understanding what is meant by the words ‘Israel’, ‘Judaism’ and ‘Jew’. There was no such word as ‘Jew’ in ancient days; being a Judaist concerned religious beliefs and practices. In converting to following Jesus, believers were no longer Judaists, as Paul’s incident with Peter demonstrates. Peter was being a hypocrite by trying to have it both ways, and had to publicly reject the demands of Judaism in order to be a follower of Jesus. He could no longer bind others to, or be bound by, the laws and ceremonies of Judaism.
I genuinely try not to bad mouth anyone, and do not consider myself racist. I consider myself a human being, and America is simply the geographical setting into which I was born. I have no more nor less concern for people of other nations, language or skin color than my own. I have friends and relatives of various national origins, cultural backgrounds and skin colors. Some speak English as a first language, others do not; frankly, I don’t think such things matter in the least. Certainly cultural conditioning contributes to who we are and how we think, but no more than individual family conditioning and personal experiences do. There is nothing I would love to see in the world than every single man, woman and child be saved from sin, misery and death. Nothing. And that is no more and no less true for Jews than any other people.
I do not really put much store in the concept of race, as the blood of our common father, Adam, runs through all human veins. At this point, as it was even in Paul’s day, being an Israelite has not so much to do with one’s race as one’s religious practices. Any foreigner could adopt the religious and ceremonial Law of Moses and become a part of the nation known as Israel. Countless descendants of Abraham converted to the Christian religion and Christianized their names through the centuries, including many who have no knowledge of a long lost Jewish heritage. Still today, Judaism is not solely about blood; anyone can become a “Jewish believer” by adhering to the laws of the Torah (and rejecting the Messiahship of Jesus).
It seems to be either naiveté or willful ignorance to insist that any unfulfilled promises to Israel await God’s performance. Joshua 21:43-45 declares:
“Thus the Lord gave to Israel all the land which he swore to give to their fathers; and having taken possession of it, they settled there. And the Lord gave them rest on every side just as he had sworn to their fathers; not one of all their enemies had withstood them, for the Lord had given all their enemies into their hands. Not one of all the good promises which the Lord had made to the house of Israel had failed; all came to pass.”
Paul declares in Romans 11: “Inasmuch then as I am an apostle to the Gentiles, I magnify my ministry in order to make my fellow Jews jealous, and thus save some of them.” Note his hope was to save ‘some’ of them. Again, a silly thing to say if he knew, and intended to later assert that ALL of his fellow Israelites would someday be saved. Is Paul absent-minded? Why did he go through the long, drawn-out process of explaining why God has not reneged on his promises to Israel, if, in any case, he was going to save ‘all’ Israel. He would have been needlessly stirring up a lot of controversy and antagonism to his fellow Israelites, which simply could have been avoided by saying, ‘Look, dudes; y’all are ‘in’ just like you have said. But God has to let you stew in your own juices for a while, until you get over your hatred for the Gentiles, cause they’re ‘in’ too. The sooner you get over it, the sooner we can all join hands and sing ‘Kum ba yah’ together.’
But that is not what he said, nor what any of the rest of scripture implies. Always, repeatedly from Joshua’s ‘Choose you this day’ to Jesus’ ‘whoever believes’, scripture declares that every single individual has a choice to make, and it is not preemptively directed by some secret plan of God. God desires that none perish, and that all turn from wickedness and live. EVERY SINGLE JEW AND EVERY SINGLE NON-JEW, without exception. In reality, some will, and some won’t, because it is their own free choice. I do not believe that God ordains the salvation of all Jews any more than he ordains the salvation of any other individual. It just doesn’t work that way. It is a free offer to all men; men of all stripes will embrace it, while others, similar to them in many ways, will reject it.
As confusing as Paul’s wording is, one would have to affirm Universalism to take his ‘All Israel will be saved’ literally, as he also states that “. . . God has consigned all men to disobedience, that he may have mercy upon all.” I would suggest that the point he is attempting to make, and which has been so terribly distorted, is that ALL have been placed on the same footing. In the exact same manner in which any Gentile can be saved, so too can any Jew. All have had the condemnation of the Law removed by the death of Jesus, so that all can – if they believe – be saved. Certainly one could assert that the previous quote ‘seems’ to imply that all men will be saved, as Universalists do; standing alone, out of the immediate and greater context, that is exactly what the words seem to say. It is just this sort of plucking up one verse out of context to make doctrine that Calvinism so suffers from.
The rest of the Old Testament tells the story of Israel as a mostly wicked, stubborn and rebellious people, who refused to put their trust in the God who had so miraculously redeemed them and given them so much, unlike any other people ever known. From its origin, the covenant with Israel was conditional, and throughout the tragic history of Israel, scripture tells of a rebellious people who stubbornly refuse to follow God’s commands. Prophet after prophet bemoaned the hopeless state of Israel. Elijah was convinced that he alone remained faithful to God, and sadly, it was only a small remnant that God was able to assure him remained true.
Salvation is not, and never was, about a blood race of men. While there is, indeed, an election of the nation of Israel to the glorious task of bringing the good news of salvation to all men, neither they, nor any people, were preordained to salvation. I do not for a moment believe that God’s love for, or desire to have an eternal relationship with men varies according to their genetic makeup or geographical history. All of the arguments that non-Calvinists make against the Calvinist doctrine of election I would apply to the ‘Jewish’ doctrine of election. I could, of course, be totally wrong; without doubt, my understanding is far from perfect or complete.
TS00,
I only had time to scan your comment. I’ll read more later. But, I do NOT believe in Universalism. I’m only discussing Jews blinded by God. Jews blinded by God is in a totally different category, as God uses them to show Jesus to us. They are UNIQUE.
God would not punish someone he blinded himself. If he didn’t blind them, then they would be just like us Gentiles. Then there would be no difference between Jew/Gentile. The no difference are those “IN CHRIST”, meaning if they are already Christians.
Galatians 3:28
There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.
“IN CHRIST” means that those Jews/Gentiles/male/female/bond/free are CHRISTIANS. IF they are not, then there is indeed Jew and Greek and Male and Female.
But did ya ever happen to notice, that Calvinists have male and female still?
Anyway, have a good night…talk later!
Ed Chapman
FOH writes, “This passage (3:10-11) is used to say that all men are sin-all-the-time God-haters.”
C’mon guys!! What happened to v9 that sets it all up??
Then, “Anyone can see that “all people” do not have “the poison of vipers on their lips.”
Look at the context – Paul is speaking of Jew and gentile.
Then, “Something other than that “all men are sin-all-the-time God-haters” is being taught here. But they will not look at the context.”
Who is the God-hater – is it not the one who does not glorify God? Regarding context, what about v9?
Then, “Meaning… obviously that some people do some good things, some of the time. They are not sin-all-the-time God-haters. ”
They do the things of the law – for what purpose?? To glorify God??
Then, “These “good works” of men…”
What “good” works?
Then, “To the average reader of God’s Word,…”
Give FOH a gold star – he got this right.
Finally, “Who can have this faith?”
“No one can come to Me, unless the Father who sent Me draws him;”
rhutchin,
You said:
“C’mon guys!! What happened to v9 that sets it all up??”
My response:
Like I said before, the LETTER does NOT end at verse 9.
I agree with you that ALL ARE UNDER SIN.
But, SIN is NOT THE SUBJECT.
Righteousness is the subject.
But if you want to talk about SIN, read Romans 4.
Romans 4:3
For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.
Oh my goodness, NO ONE is RIGHTEOUS, NO NOT ONE! OOOPS, Abraham was RIGHTEOUS. My bad!
1 John 3:4
SIN IS: THE TRANSGRESSION OF “THE LAW”
Romans 3:20
THE LAW IS: THE KNOWLEDGE OF SIN
Romans 4:15
Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, THERE IS “NO SIN”
Romans 5:13
For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.
SO, Rhutchin,
Just because all are UNDER SIN, that does not mean that sin is IMPUTED, but it is, IF, you have KNOWLEDGE of YOUR sin, by a MEANS that gets you that KNOWLEDGE.
But HOW is RIGHTOUESNESS “OBTAINED”? Obtained. Obtained.
That is the subject of BOTH Romans 3 AND 4 (FOR WHICH YOU NEED TO READ TOGETHER WITH ROMANS 3 IN ORDER TO SEE THE FULL CONTEXT.
Again, sin is not the context of Romans 3. Righteousness is the context of Romans 3 and 4.
Righteousness is OBTAINED simply by BELIEVING. Again, Romans 4:3.
Abraham was NOT UNDER THE LAW, and that is extremely important to the conversation, because the law WORKS WRATH all because the law exposes sin.
Adam in the Garden…There was a REASON for the NAME of that tree. Adam could have smoked crack, and as long as he didn’t know that was a sin, the sin would be excused, and not imputed to him. Until he ate of that tree that GAVE HIM KNOWLEDGE of evil.
No law, no sin, EVEN IF YOU SIN.
Ed Chapman
chapmaned24 writes, “I agree with you that ALL ARE UNDER SIN.”
At least, we agree on something.
rhutchin,
You ask me:
“doesn’t context yell us that both Jews and Gentiles are in view?”
My response is that the topic of Romans there is NOT ABOUT SIN AT ALL.
Continue with where the story concludes, rather than stopping.
YES, both Jews and Gentiles are all under sin.
But that is not the subject of the conversation.
How one obtains righteousness is the conversation.
Jews seek it by the law vs. God’s righteousness is given thru OUR OWN BELIEF, that is, faith.
Both JEWS and Gentiles cannot obtain righteousness, that is, eternal life, until we eat of the tree of life, then it is given as a gift.
No one is righteous on their own OBEDIENCE to the law. No one can have sin imputed to them, without knowledge of sin, and that is thru the law, even if they sin.
Conclusion is that sin is not the context. Righteousness is.
And that no one, Jew, or Gentile can obtain it by SELF RIGHTEOUSNESS, which is the same exact thing as stating thru the law by being obedient to it, and guess what? Gentiles were never under the law to begin with. So Gentiles have never done WORKS to begin with. And neither did Abraham. No law, no works. Righteousness, not self righteousness.
Please read, as Paul Harvey would say, THE REST OF THE STORY, and what you NOW conclude the context to be, will be a totally different one than what you now conclude.
Ed Chapman
chapmaned24 writes, “You ask me:“doesn’t context yell us that both Jews and Gentiles are in view?”
“YES, both Jews and Gentiles are all under sin.”
I agree.
Then, ” Righteousness, not self righteousness.”
I agree. Righteousness manifests from faith given by God; self-righteousness manifests from a faith with which a person is born.
rhutchin,
You had said:
“Righteousness manifests from faith given by God; self-righteousness manifests from a faith with which a person is born.”
My response:
Self Righteousness is OBEYING THE LAW OF MOSES.
Faith has nothing to do with that. The law is NOT OF FAITH.
Faith and law are contrary to each other. They don’t go hand in hand. They are not related.
And lastly, like I said before, God does NOT GIVE FAITH.
Dissect Hebrews 11:1. When you do, you will see that:
FAITH IS:
KNOWING THAT YOU ARE GOING TO GET WHAT YOU ARE WAITING FOR.
But ya gotta dissect it to the lowest level.
For example:
Hebrews 11:1 (KJV) FAITH IS:
Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
Substance:
Strong’s Concordance Greek Ref #5287: Assurance
Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, Eleventh Edition defines assurance as: Pledge, Guarantee
Romans 8:24-25
For we are saved by hope: but hope that is seen is not hope: for what a man seeth, why doth he yet hope for? But if we hope for that we see not, then do we with patience wait for it.
Hoped, Hope:
Strong’s Concordance Greek Ref #’s1679, 1680: Expectation or confidence
Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, Eleventh Edition defines hope as:
to expect with confidence; Expectation is defined as: Anticipation; Anticipation is defined as: The act of looking forward, and, visualization of a future event or state.
Hebrews 11:1
Now FAITH IS: The guarantee of things (substance/assurance) expected (hoped/waiting for).
Faith: Strong’s Concordance Greek Ref #4102:
Persuasion, i.e. credence. Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, Eleventh Edition defines credence as: mental acceptance as true or real.
——————————-
Gonna expound on Romans 3:9 (all under sin, RIGHTEOUSNESS, SCHOOLMASTER BRINGS US TO CHRIST, NOT A MAGIC WAND)
Galatians 3:21-26
…for if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law.
But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.
23 But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed.
24 Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.
25 But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.
26 For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.
Ed Chapman
rhutcin,
My same EXACT argument goes to your Galatians 5, AND 1 John 3, as well.
And this SAME ARGUMENT by me is THRU AND THRU this whole post. And what is that, you might ask?
LAW OF MOSES vs. NO LAW OF MOSES.
Ed Chapman
Chapman have posted this one:’
“Gentiles are NOT elect. Therefore, elect and saved, or will be saved are not EQUAL words directed at Gentiles.”
————Here’s My Response—————-
Chapman has his own world. He denies the Gentiles as either elect or will be saved, but he cannot afford to prove this claims in Scriptures.
jtleosala,
Yes, you can prove that only the Jews are the elect. We’ve been doing that in previous blog posts. I’m NOT the only one here that has stated that.
Isaiah 45:4
For Jacob my servant’s sake, and Israel mine elect,
Ed Chapman
How the Bible ACTUALLY reads…..
Mark 16:16 (NKJV)…
He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.
John 3:17 (NKJV)….
For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved.
Romans 10:9 (NKJV)….
…that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved.
Romans 10:13 (NKJV)….
For “whoever calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved.”
Ephesians 2:8 (NKJV)….
For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God
1 Timothy 2:3-4 (NKJV)….
For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.
Acts 2:21 (NKJV)…
And it shall come to pass That whoever calls on the name of the Lord Shall be saved.
Acts 2:47b (NKJV)….
And the Lord added to the church daily those who were being saved.
Acts 4:12 (NKJV)….
Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.”
Acts 11:13-14 (NKJV)…
And he told us how he had seen an angel standing in his house, who said to him, “Send men to Joppa, and call for Simon whose surname is Peter, who will tell you words by which you and all your household will be saved.”
Acts 15:11 (NKJV)…
But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved in the same manner as they.
Acts 16:29-30 (NKJV)….
Then he called for a light, ran in, and fell down trembling before Paul and Silas. And he brought them out and said, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?”
Now how Arminians WANT us to read them….
Mark 16:16 (NKJV)…
He who believes and is baptized will be “elect”; but he who does not believe will be “non-elect”.
John 3:17 (NKJV)….
For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be “elect”.
Romans 10:9 (NKJV)….
…that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be “elect”.
Romans 10:13 (NKJV)….
For “whoever calls on the name of the Lord shall be ‘elect’.”
Ephesians 2:8 (NKJV)….
For by grace you have been “elected” through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God,
1 Timothy 2:3-4 (NKJV)….
For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all men to be “elect” and to come to the knowledge of the truth.
Acts 2:21 (NKJV)…
And it shall come to pass That whoever calls on the name of the Lord Shall be “elect”.
Acts 2:47b (NKJV)….
And the Lord added to the church daily those who were being “elected”.
Acts 4:12 (NKJV)….
Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be “elect”.
Acts 11:13-14 (NKJV)…
And he told us how he had seen an angel standing in his house, who said to him, “Send men to Joppa, and call for Simon whose surname is Peter, who will tell you words by which you and all your household will be ‘elect’.’
Acts 15:11 (NKJV)…
But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be “elect” in the same manner as they.
Acts 16:29-31 (NKJV)….
Then he called for a light, ran in, and fell down trembling before Paul and Silas. And he brought them out and said, “Sirs, what must I do to be ‘elect’?” So they said, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be ‘elect’, you and your household.”
See how we read into something that the scriptures never say? All of this is because we have allowed Calvinism/Arminianism to dictate what election means. Not one person in all scripture asked “How may I know that I am elect?” or “What must I do to be ‘elect’?” Not once. The issue was/is salvation, not election.
Israel is His elect (Isaiah 45:4; Matthew 24:22, 24, 31; Romans 8:33; 2 Timothy 2:10; 1 Peter 1:2). The church is His body (Ephesians 1:22-23, Colossians 1:24).
At least that’s what the Book says before man threw his 2 cents in.
Merry Christmas!
God told Cain to not hate his brother? I sure didn’t read that. What I read is that God made 2 “If/then” statements giving Cain a free will option.
chapmaned24 writes, ” What I read is that God made 2 “If/then” statements giving Cain a free will option.”
Yes, a free will option to hate his brother – without which, he would not have killed him.
But, you ignore my question – Why did Cain deliberately choose to disobey God?
rhutchin,
You had asked:
“But, you ignore my question – Why did Cain deliberately choose to disobey God?”
My response:
Can you tell me HOW he disobeyed God? I don’t see a COMMANDMENT anywhere. All I see is OPTIONS with IF/THEN statements.
Cain chose option 2.
Now, why did he choose option 2? I suppose you can ask Cain after you die.
But what answer are you FISHING for?
Ed Chapman
chapmaned24 writes, “Can you tell me HOW he disobeyed God? I don’t see a COMMANDMENT anywhere. All I see is OPTIONS with IF/THEN statements.”
After Cain killed Abel, we find God saying this, ““What have you done? The voice of your brother’s blood is crying to Me from the ground.
And now you are cursed from the ground, which has opened its mouth to receive your brother’s blood from your hand.”
God would not be upset if there were no wrongdoing (no sin). Rather than argue as you suggest, Cain says, ““My punishment is too great to bear!” Some things are obvious even when the Scriptures do not specifically explain them.
Chapman posted this one:
“GOD DID NOT WANT HIM TO HAVE KNOWLEDGE, GOD WANTED ADAM TO REMAIN IGNORANT OF SIN.”
————Here’s My Response———
I have some few questions of Chapman’s post above, just for clarifications regarding his stand on the issue i.e.:
1. Why is it that God does not want Adam to have knowledge, when he was already endowed with intellectual capabilities by the time he was created after Go’d own image?
2. Is being ignorant of Sin, would qualify Adam not to die both in Physical as well as Spiritual even if he failed to eat of the Tree of Life ?
3. Is the “Tree of Life” mentioned in Genesis offers the same eternal life as with the eternal life that Jesus Christ offer to sinners?
4. When God created Adam, in his original status before the fall to sin, was he a mortal or immortal being?
5. What is your stand on the issue of “Prevenient Grace” before the fall of man to sin?
jtleosala,
You had said:
1. Why is it that God does not want Adam to have knowledge, when he was already endowed with intellectual capabilities by the time he was created after Go’d own image?
My response:
What was the NAME of that tree? What did Adam GET from the eating of that tree? KNOWLEDGE OF GOOD AND EVIL. Are you indicating that God wanted Adam to have knowledge of Good and Evil? That God wanted him to eat of that tree? That God wanted him to know that he was naked?
Genesis 3:11
The Lord God said, “Who told you that you were naked?
Did God inform him that he was naked? So much of intellecualism.
Genesis 3:22
And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil.
You had said:
2. Is being ignorant of Sin, would qualify Adam not to die both in Physical as well as Spiritual even if he failed to eat of the Tree of Life ?
My response:
Adam was going to die a NATURAL PHYSICAL death whether he ate of the tree of knowledge of good and evil or not. The ONLY way that he could have lived forever, whether he ate of the tree of KNOWLEDGE of good and evil or not, was to have eaten of the Tree of Life.
Genesis 3:22, 24 (continued from above)
and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever…he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.
God blocked access to the tree of life so that Adam would not eat of it and live forever in a fallen state.
Genesis 3 discusses SPIRITUAL DEATH, not NATURAL DEATH. Spirtual death is separation from God. Natural death is not separation from God.
Adam got knowledge of sin SUPERNATURALLY, thru eating a fruit on a NAME OF A tree that has the word KNOWLEDGE in it.
You had said:
3. Is the “Tree of Life” mentioned in Genesis offers the same eternal life as with the eternal life that Jesus Christ offer to sinners?
Did God sacrifice an animal, shedding it’s blood, to use the animal skins to COVER their NAKEDNESS?
Sacrifice…that sacrifice RESUMED the relationship between God and man. Sound familiar? Prophesy of Jesus from the very beginning, for it pleased the father to what? God sent his son as a sacrifice!
Yes, and spiritually Jesus is the Tree of Life. But in the Garden, it was an actual tree, with SUPERNATURAL POWERS.
You had said:
4. When God created Adam, in his original status before the fall to sin, was he a mortal or immortal being?
My response:
As I stated above, MORTAL. He was gonna die a NATURAL PHYSICAL DEATH anyway, UNLESS he ate of the tree of Life.
But did you ever notice that God NEVER TOLD HIM about that tree? He told him of the tree NOT to eat from, but he never told him which tree to eat from, to gain eternal life. But it was there!
You had said:
5. What is your stand on the issue of “Prevenient Grace” before the fall of man to sin?
My response:
I don’t believe in Prevenient Grace. I don’t believe in irresitable grace either.
I believe in a CONSCIENCE that gives you GUILT based on either a) the law of Moses (Romans 3:20, for by the law is the knowledge of sin), or the law written in our hearts (stealing, lying, murdering, etc.)
Romans 2:15
Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, THEIR CONSCIENCE also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;)
The law is our schoolmaster that brings us to Christ.
We learn FROM THAT LAW that we are guilty before God. THEN COMES STEP 2, WE HEAR ABOUT A SAVIOR. We are sorry. We repent. We are baptized and confess with our mouth FROM OUR OWN HEART that Jesus is Lord (GOD).
John 8:9
And they which heard it, being convicted by their OWN CONSCIENCE, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst.
——————————————————
Continuing on…
I know that Calvinists LOVE Romas 9:17.
But what I see from that verse is that God USED Pharaoh as a MEANS to show Moses as a TYPE of Jesus, freeing HIS PEOPLE from the BONDAGE of sin (Egypt).
The Pharaoh’s salvation had NOTHING to do with it at all. He was USED to show prophesy of Jesus thru Moses. That’s it.
I have no doubt that the Pharaoh is in heaven with Jesus right now, thanking Jesus for USING him!
Ed Chapman
I would just like to caution against too much presumption. We must acknowledge that much of what we ‘think’ we know is simply theoretical. We do not really know much about the tree of knowledge of good and evil. We can only theorize whether or not it, along with so many things in scripture, is a literal tree or whether this is a metaphorical image. We do not know what is meant by the issue with nakedness. I am not sure that many people imagine that merely being naked is a sin. I’m not suggesting that I have all the answers – but that I am not so sure anyone else does either. There was a day when I was pretty arrogant about my own theories – now I caution myself, and others, to humbly remember that there is much that we do not know for sure. Literal or metaphorical, we do need to grapple with what the story intends to teach us. But a large dose of humility is a good way to start. And it opens doors to having productive conversations with others. I am sure that I still too often state what I ‘think’ as if it is true, when, in reality, it is simply my current working theory.
TS00,
You had said:
“I would just like to caution against too much presumption. We must acknowledge that much of what we ‘think’ we know is simply theoretical. We do not really know much about the tree of knowledge of good and evil…”
My response:
I feel extremely comfortable in what I laid out. Extremely. But thanks anyway.
Ed Chapman
TS00,
You had said:
“I would just like to caution against too much presumption. We must acknowledge that much of what we ‘think’ we know is simply theoretical. We do not really know much about the tree of knowledge of good and evil…”
My response:
I feel extremely comfortable in what I laid out. Thank you, tho.
Ed Chapman
That sounds terribly close to ‘I know I am right, so I don’t have to leave room for error.’ Ouch. It is the very ‘comfort’ in one’s certitude that I am cautioning against. Being humbly aware of how much of our certainty is, shall we say, misplaced, just might serve us, and others, better. But that’s just my humble opinion. 😉
TS00,
Oh, it doesn’t sound close to! It is “I know I’m right”.
I’ve studied THIS topic for MANY MANY YEARS.
I’m not the type of person that lowers the writings as “poetic”.
To me, poetry is Roses are Red, Violets are blue.
But what some call hyperbole, or poetic…it has real MEANING, and we need to dissect it, and NOT LEAVE IT to the Catholics to DICTATE to us that it’s ORIGINAL SIN. It’s not. Not even close.
The Catholics don’t even know what the heck that they are talking about. And to think that the Reformers just wanted the Catholics to reform themselves, and if they would have, they would still be Catholics.
Well, I don’t trust anything a Catholic states regarding anything Christian. There is no such thing as “Original Sin”. I know I’m right.
Ed Chapman
TS00,
There is a LOT OF BAGGAGE that Reformers brought forth with them from Catholicism. LOTS. They didn’t ditch everything Catholic, which is what they should have done, and started from the drawing board.
One of which, was to stop badmouthing the Jews for killing Jesus. He was supposed to die on a cross.
Ed Chapman
You share much that I can agree with. I was once very certain in a lot of things, and am now ashamed of my former arrogance. People who think, and study and care deeply fall prey to that temptation. I find it much healthier to hold my opinions more loosely, giving both myself and others room for growth in knowledge and wisdom. We’ve all got a lot to learn.
TS00,
Acts 17:10-12 King James Version (KJV)
10 And the brethren immediately sent away Paul and Silas by night unto Berea: who coming thither went into the synagogue of the Jews.
11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.
12 Therefore many of them believed; also of honourable women which were Greeks, and of men, not a few.
In other words, they didn’t just take the word of Paul. They researched it themselves. They had to find out if what Paul was telling them was the truth or not. Never just take the word of the preacher. Take the Word of God over man.
Don’t take my word for it either. Take what I give, and research it.
How can you discern false teaching unless you compare what is taught, vs. what the bible teaches?
Example:
Genesis 1 shows that animals were created before man.
Genesis 2 shows that man was on the earth before animals. Then finally came Eve after the animals.
Can you explain that? The order of events are out of whack here…or are they?
ChapmanEd:
Thanks for giving your time with my questions. I can imagine here that upon your exit from your work instead of relaxing you spend much of your time here at SOT 101.com. Are you working in a ship? I appreciate the way you clarify things regarding your stand. This will help us also to become precise and to avoid presumptions on your claims and arguments here.
You stated this one : “I believe in a CONSCIENCE that gives you GUILT based on either a) the law of Moses (Romans 3:20, for by the law is the knowledge of sin), or the law written in our hearts (stealing, lying, murdering, etc.)”
Below are some questions in relation to your quote above.
1. Do you think Cain fell guilty for killing his brother Abel? Even if there was no law given during their time?
2. By the way, I have seen your statement regarding Pharaoh of Egypt, you say that he is saved. How about Cain, was he saved?
3. With regards to those persons nowadays with “callous conscience” like the ones cited in Romans chapter 1 that the male does not have anymore appetite to have sex with women as well as women and the LGBT?, How can they be restored and be able to repent if their conscience is no longer sensitive to discern the truth? – You say you don’t believe in “Prevenient Grace nor in “irresistible Grace”? How do you resolve this based on Scriptures?
jtleosala,
I was in the US Navy from 1982-2001 (BEFORE 9/11). I was a payroll clerk in the Navy. I was stationed in Yokosuka, Japan, Bremerton, Wa, Norfolk, Va., and San Diego, CA.
Ships included the USS Cochrane DDG-21, USS Midway CV-41, USS Nimitz CVN 68, USS Enterprise and the USS John C Stennis CVN 74.
I am now back in Bremerton as a civilian. However, I’ve been to Subic Bay more times than I can count. I’ve been to Hawaii, Hong Kong, Singapore, Japan, Australia, Diego Garcia, Malaysia, Dubai, Oman, Bahrain, Thailand, Canada, and have been fortunate enough to cross paths with the footsteps of Moses and the Children of Israel by going to the Red Sea thru the Suez Canal in order to get to the Persian Gulf.
I am now a traffic control flagger for numerous utility and construction companies, I’m on call and I get dispatched, and I get many hours overtime hours in, as well as numerous prevailing wage opportunities.
And yes, I do spend time on blogs, not just this one. Now, to answer your questions:
—————————————————————————–
You had said:
1. Do you think Cain fell guilty for killing his brother Abel? Even if there was no law given during their time?
My response:
YES!
God warned him about SIN. He had knowledge of sin. He and his brother were doing sacrifices and offerings. God didn’t like Cain’s offerings, but God liked Abel’s sacrifices. Seems to me that Cain is just GOING THRU THE MOTIONS, without any HEART into it. And God was not happy. He was jealous of his brother Abel, and anger consumed him. Angry “without a cause”.
Genesis 4:7
if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door
Cain did NOT ASK GOD, “Sin, what is this sin thing you speak of?”
Genesis 4:4 (Sacrifices)
And Abel, he also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereo
Genesis 4:3 (Offerings)
Cain brought of the fruit of the ground an offering unto the Lord.
Hebrews 11:4
By faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, by which he obtained witness that he was righteous, God testifying of his gifts: and by it he being dead yet speaketh.
NOTICE THE WORD SACRIFICE? NOTICE THE WORD “RIGHTEOUS”
No one righteous, no not one, huh? Hmmmmmm! Hebrews 11:4 disagrees. Guess we need to go back to the drawing board regarding Romans 3:10.
How was Abel Righteous? What is the PURPOSE of sacrifices? Who taught them to do sacrifices? Whoever did, did they explain to them the PURPOSE and REASON for killing animals, calling it sacrifices?
1 John 3:12
Not as Cain, who was of that wicked one, and slew his brother. And wherefore slew he him? Because his own works were evil, and his brother’s righteous.
OH MY GOSH, THERE IS THAT NASTY WORD CALLED WORKS! YIKES!
Matthew 23:35
That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel
What was the works? SACRIFICING! And again, what is the PURPOSE of sacrificing? To RESUME a relationship with God after sins committed. So, even tho Abel sinned, he offered sacrifices as a WORK to atone for his sins, and was declared righteous.
Now, where do you suppose that they got the idea from about sacrifices and offerings? Probably from MOM AND DAD! Right? Mom and Dad, now EDUCATED with knowledge now teaching their children about that knowledge of sin.
And when God confronted Cain for what he had done, he tried to lie his way out of it, but he acknowledged his punishment.
But, keep in mind, please, that there was once upon a time,JUST LIKE MOMMY AND DADDY, that both Cain, and Abel had NO CLUE what sin was…NO KNOWLEDGE of good and evil (Deuteronomy 1:39)
Deu. 1:39 SHOWS us that this knowledge is TAUGHT to us by mommy and daddy. And that UNTIL YOU HAVE KNOWLEDGE of Good and Evil, your sins are not imputed.
—————————————————
I’m gonna stop here for a second, and just ask you to see ABEL AS JESUS, and CAIN as Satan, spiritually speaking! I always seek the spiritual story in as much as I can read regarding the carnal story. Why? Because I believe that it is telling us a MUCH BIGGER story line about God and Satan, not Abel and Cain. But it is about Cain and Abel, too. A True Story. History. But there is a mystery behind the history.
Abel SHED BLOOD! (Jesus)
John 8:44 (Abel was the first human murderer)
Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning
Jesus said “Get behind me Satan”. Was he talking to Peter? Or Satan? He was looking right at Peter, was he not?
————————————————–
I’m still responding to your question #1, so bear with me about “No Law Given During Their Time” portion of your question. I’m going to ADVANCE a number of years to ABRAHAM.
Moses came 4 generations down the road from Abraham, , but since Romans 3:20 states that the law is the knowledge of sin, I need to show something:
From THE LAW!
Leviticus 18:9
The nakedness of thy sister, the daughter of thy father, or daughter of thy mother, whether she be born at home, or born abroad, even their nakedness thou shalt not uncover.
Leviticus 18:11
The nakedness of thy father’s wife’s daughter, begotten of thy father, she is thy sister, thou shalt not uncover her nakedness.
WHO was Sarah to Abraham? His fathers daughter, right? Did anyone bother telling Abraham that incest is a sin? Why did God continue to allow Abraham to commit incest with his sister?
Instead, God states, “I’m gonna give your sister a son that you can call your own!”
What would TODAY’S society think of “INBRED”, whether you are a Christian or not? Acceptable? But it was acceptable to God with Abraham and Sarah. WHY?
—————————————————————————
You had said:
2. By the way, I have seen your statement regarding Pharaoh of Egypt, you say that he is saved. How about Cain, was he saved?
My response:
We don’t know much about Cain after that. Not sure how he continued on with sacrifices and offerings after that, but God already punished him for his sin of murder by sending him OUT OF HIS SIGHT (separation from God)…think spiritual here, not carnal, i.e. Satan vs. God, not Cain and Abel. Satan’s destiny is already decided, for he has already been judged. For it is appointed unto man once to die, and then the judgment. That means that you are judged after you die, NOT BEFORE. Cain still had an opportunity to do sacrifices and get right with God.
I’m NOT a fan of those CHRISTIANS that declare definitively that Cain is burning in hell. How do they know?
—————————————————————————-
You had said:
3. With regards to those persons nowadays with “callous conscience” like the ones cited in Romans chapter 1 that the male does not have anymore appetite to have sex with women as well as women and the LGBT?, How can they be restored and be able to repent if their conscience is no longer sensitive to discern the truth? – You say you don’t believe in “Prevenient Grace nor in “irresistible Grace”? How do you resolve this based on Scriptures?
My response:
I do not see ANY examples of Prevenient or irresistible Grace in the Bible at all.
In regards to Romans 1, in order to understand Romans 1, you have got to read ALL of the book of Romans. THEN you can do a book report about Romans 1.
So, let’s first go to Romans 2, in order to determine who the AUDIENCE is:
Romans 2:24-25
24 For the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles through you, as it is written.
25 For circumcision verily profiteth, if thou keep the law: but if thou be a breaker of the law, thy circumcision is made uncircumcision.
WHO was Paul discussing in Romans 1?
What was the PERIOD of TIME of his discussion regarding the gay people?
What was his PURPOSE in mentioning THOSE people to begin with?
To me the book of Romans is discussing the DIFFERENCES between Jew, and Gentile, those under the law of BONDAGE, and those under the law of freedom. Those under the law of bondage JUDGING those who do THE SAME EXACT THINGS THEY DO, being hypocrites.
THE LAW CAUSE WRATH, No Law doesn’t.
So, I’m CURIOUS as to WHY you are mentioning gay people? What point are you trying to make? Again, what gay people are you talking about? Today’s gays?
I’m gonna ask if COMMITTING ADULTERY is a sin? WHO IS NOT GUILTY OF THAT? Jesus said that if you lust after a woman in your heart, you are guilty of adultery. WHO IS NOT GUILTY OF THAT? Jesus said that for a reason. You can sin in your heart, without acting it out in the flesh. LUST.
Didn’t Jesus say that ALL SINS can be forgiven EXCEPT for one? Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit.
What’s my point?
I think your point in mentioning Romans 1, God giving up on homosexuals, is not the discussion that Paul is discussing at all.
Paul has a DEEPER point to make, and he used a particular TIME FRAME to make a deeper point. Homosexuality just so happened to be his EXAMPLE.
Romans 1 does not end the discussion. The SAME “subject” continues for many chapters…LAW vs. NO LAW. Bondage vs. Freedom. Flesh vs. Spirit.
Ed Chapman
jtleosala,
Just noticed an error in my last comment.
I had said:
‘John 8:44 (Abel was the first human murderer)’
Change the word “Abel” to “Cain”
Ed Chapman
ChapmanEd;
Thanks for your kindness and generous heart for revealing us some info concerning your present job background. There are Types of Christ in the OT and you have just cited Abel as one which I also appreciate.
I recall you have cited based on the Book of Romans that: “sin is only imputed when there is law existing” . In the case of Cain and Abel:
1. There was no law yet given like do not kill, or do’t murder, why is it that God is charging Cain of that offense?
2. Why do you think Cain and Abel were doing Offerings and Sacrifices if they have nothing evil done for themselves, unlike their Mom and Dad who were able to know already of what is good and evil?
3. If Abel is “righteous”, not a sinner then would it mean that Abel does not need Christ as Savior?
4. Abel is a mortal human being. If there exists as a righteous One that is no other than God Himself-this I believe.
I’m still not very sure if you are a Universalist. — and for a universalist, Abel is one of those whom Christ died for. Can we hear your reaction to this?
Don’t have much time to respond thoroughly right now, but I do believe I answered all these questions already in that previous content.
1. And 2. Both Cain and Abel knew what sin was, otherwise they would not be doing sacrifices. How did they know? Mom and dad taught them. And because they were doing sacrifices, it’s already a given that not only did they know what sin is, based on mom and dad teaching, but that they were also sinning themselves, hence the need to sacrifice.
Genesis 4:7
…sin lies at the door…
He knew murder was a sin. Acts 15 indicates that Abraham was a Gentile. Romans 2 indicates that Gentiles have the law written in their heart.
So, either Cain and Abel knew sin based on mom and dad teaching them, or, they have a conscience based on the law written in their heart, as Romans 2 indicates.
Either way, they knew what sin was, and since they knew, then they knew what their own personal sins were.
3. I never said that the word “righteous” is equated to “Not a sinner”, did I?
I brought up Abraham for a reason. He was having sex with his sister, which is a sin, and I referenced 2 Deuteronomy verses. He was a sinner. He was righteous. All humans need Christ as saviour. Even righteous Abraham.
But, Romans 4 and 5 and 7 shows that if you don’t know that sleeping with your sister is a sin, then that sin is not imputed. Righteous or not, the righteous needs a saviour, because Abraham was sinning, even tho he didn’t know it, even tho the sin was not imputed to him.
To summarize, righteous Abel was a sinner, needing Christ as saviour. I don’t know how you conclude that the word righteous means “Not a sinner”.
4. No, I’m not a Universalist. The Jews are in a category that is unique apart from the Gentiles.
According to Romans 3, God’s righteousness is without the law, manifested by…YOU OWN FAITH. The law is not of faith. Faith is not a work.
There were righteous people in the gospels. Under the law. But why were they righteous?
Luke 1:6
And they were both righteous before God.
Those two righteous people were sinners needing Christ as saviour.
What was Abraham’s bosom all about?
Wasn’t that where the righteous went, awaiting Jesus to die on the cross to free them from that temporary place? The RIGHTEOUS went there.
Ed Chapman
Chapman posted this one:
“So, either Cain and Abel knew sin based on mom and dad teaching them, or, they have a conscience based on the law written in their heart, as Romans 2 indicates.”
“Either way, they knew what sin was, and since they knew, then they knew what their own personal sins were.”
You said this : “1. And 2. Both Cain and Abel knew what sin was, otherwise they would not be doing sacrifices. How did they know? Mom and dad taught them. And because they were doing sacrifices, it’s already a given that not only did they know what sin is, based on mom and dad teaching, but that they were also sinning themselves, hence the need to sacrifice.”
———–Here’s My Response————-
Since that you admit Cain and Abel a sinner even though there was no law given to them during their time but through their conscience, do you affirm now the doctrine of “Original Sin” and “Total depravity”?
jtleosala,
Absolutely NOT. Where do you get the idea that I should?
I’ve been showing you reasons why I DO NOT believe in original sin.
There is no such thing as original sin.
Adam was gonna die a natural death anyway, and he never obtained eternal life.
My premise is that He didn’t LOSE eternal life. My premise is that he didn’t gain eternal life.
You can’t lose something that you never possessed to begin with.
We die because Adam didn’t eat of the tree of life.
We would not die if Adam ate of the tree of life.
Since Adam ate of the tree of KNOWLEDGE, we still would live forever if he would have are of the tree of life in his fallen state. He would have never died, even if he sinned, had he ate of the tree of life.
I have never believed in the doctrine of original sin.
Ed Chapman
“I have never believed in the doctrine of original sin.”
Ed Chapman
———-Here’s My Response———
I think you cannot deny that you are a Gentile sinner. If you are a sinner then:
1. Chapman is sin infected possessing a sinful nature beginning from your mother’s womb,
2. Chapman is “spiritually dead” upon birth,
3. Therefore Chapman is a carrier of the “Original Sin” even if he deny and never believe in it.
Romans 5:12 says: Therefore, just as through one man SIN entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to ALL MEN (including ChapmanEd) , because ALL sinned.
TS00 writes, “There lies strong confusion, or is it delusion, on the part of the Calvinist who attempts to assert that both Divine Determinism and free choice of the divinely controlled individual.”
No confusion or delusion but the result of God being omnipotent. A doctrine to which you do not seem to ascribe.
rhutchin states:
“TS00 can and will do only that which God wills”.
My response:
NONE OF THAT IS EVEN SLIGHTLY TRUE.
Shall we discuss your favorite story about the Pharaoh? Isn’t that where you get your doctrine?
Let me tell you a DIFFERENT story about the your famous Romans , what is it? 9?
MOSES was a PICTURE OF JESUS, THE REDEEMER.
What did Jesus save us from?
BONDAGE.
Is any of that clicking in your mind yet?
That Pharaoh was CHOSEN by God to REPRESENT what Jesus came here to save us from.
Your famous take on the Pharaoh, is no where near the truth at all.
Prophesy of Jesus is the ONLY reason that God manipulates things.
Where is the DEVIL in your teachings? You do know that Satan and God are ENEMIES? Satan tries to THWART God’s plans.
Judah and Judah’s sons. Prophesy states that Jesus comes from the line of Judah. The ONLY way that could happen was for Judah to have sex with his daughter-in-law.
Satan tried to thwart God’s plans USING Judah’s two sons, but God intervened to make sure PROPHESY came true.
Salvation, or no salvation has NOTHING TO DO WITH YOUR PHARAOH. Your exegesis is PHONY, FAKE, AND ILLOGICAL. None of what you say about the Pharaoh is true.
God wants a relationship with EVERY MAN, WOMAN, AND CHILD that he created.
But, God willing a relationship with all of mankind creation is NOT a doctrine that you seem to ascribe to. But I do.
I’ll bet your soul that the Pharaoh is in heaven right now with Jesus, THANKING him for USING HIM, while you think that the Pharoah is burning in hell for eternity.
Ed Chapman
Calvinists don’t speak much of Satan. He gets the short shrift, like the Holy Spirit, as both suggest so many of the realities Calvinists try to deny. One encourages obedience, the other, disobedience. Both suggest freedom of choice, and opposing wills, rather than one tyrant calling all the shots, playing both sides against one another, pretending like the controlled game has purpose and meaning.
Ya, that’s why I brought Satan up. I never hear about Satan.
Jesus told Peter that Satan desires to have him.
Satan tried to THART Jesus from even getting to that cross, so Satan USED Peter to DEFEND Jesus from the soldiers that came to arrest Jesus.
What if Peter was successful at defending Jesus, and Jesus never got to that cross?
Jesus would have lived a long full life, and died of old age, and NO ONE WOULD BE SAVED. All because Satan had his way with Peter, and Peter would be a hero for saving Jesus from death. And THAT was SATANS plan. Not God’s plan.
But, Jesus intervened in his own right, KNOWING THAT HE HAD TO GET TO THAT CROSS. ON THAT DAY, too. Not the next day. He was the Passover Lamb of God. And Passover had RULES.
Prophesy would have been thwarted had Satan had his way.
Satan tried to make sure that Jesus was never born. Satan also tried to pull that stunt with Moses, too. MOSES/JESUS…PROPHESY!
Salvation of people had nothing to do with any of that.
Ed Chapman
TS00 writes, “Calvinists don’t speak much of Satan.”
No one speaks much of Satan. From Job, we see that Satan can only do as God determines (same for TS00).
Ah, so reassuring to know that if some madman pushes a button, or pulls a trigger, the dozens, perhaps millions of lives lost can all be blamed on ‘God’s will’. It’s what he ordained and determined to bring to pass long, long before any madmen were chosen to carry it out. Makes one’s own sins rather trivial, doesn’t it? Which is most convenient for those who prefer to not consider their own sins, but sweep them under the ‘Jesus covers it’ rug. All in the humble name of a God-centered theology that takes no credit and gives all of the ‘glory’ to God. Because God would hate to lose any of the ‘glory’ for spilling the blood of countless innocent men, women and children through the ages. Imagine all of those world and religious leaders thinking they can take credit for their endless abuse, war, torture and genocide when it’s really all God’s doing. Some glory. Some god.
TS00 writes, “perhaps millions of lives lost can all be blamed on ‘God’s will’. It’s what he ordained and determined to bring to pass long, long before any madmen were chosen to carry it out.”
Are you saying that God is not omnipotent and could not prevent such things had He willed to do so?
rhutchin,
You are wrong about Job, too.
Job was already a follower of God. God protected Job with a hedge of protection, and Satan reminded God of that. Satan was right.
So God made a bet with the devil, and put rules in place.
Remember, Job was already a follower of God.
It was a test of faith. It was not to establish any kind of fundamental procedures regarding rules that Satan can only do what God allows him to do with anyone.
Ed Chapman
c24 writes, “It was not to establish any kind of fundamental procedures regarding rules that Satan can only do what God allows him to do with anyone.”
Satan obviously recognized that God was omnipotent and that he could do nothing without God saying that he could. That is no different than anyone else. God is omnipotent and nothing happens unless He says it will happen.
That’s not true. This was a test of faith that Job already had. God had a hedge of protection around Job, and in order for Satan to shoo anything, God had to remove it. Satan is restricted from doing things regarding the rules that he set up. But Satan is the god of this world and has free reign of those in the world. Free reign. He can do as he pleases, unless they are followers of God, then the restrictions take place.
Satan wants to take as many down with him as possible, but God wills that all men be saved, but God will not get everyone he wills. God wills that everyone is saved. But he won’t get everyone.
Your line of thinking is skewed. Just because God wills it, does not mean that God will get what he wants.
C4 writes, “But Satan is the god of this world and has free reign of those in the world. Free reign. He can do as he pleases, unless they are followers of God, then the restrictions take place.”
Satan is not omnipotent; God is. Satan does as he pleases only so long as God agrees – where God and Satan seek different outcomes, God always prevails.
I think you underestimate your adversary. Satan knows way more than anyone put together on this earth.
You are wrong again. Earth is where Satan and his angels were banished to. They can do anything they want. Anything. And God has no say.
The demons had a discussion with Jesus. Satan tempted Jesus.
The only restrictions Satan has, is on those following God.
Satan has a kingdom. And he reigns on earth, and God can’t dictate anything to him, until the book of revelation.
Look at the conversations Jesus had with the demons. Send us to the pigs. Are ya gonna punish is before the time? Dude, they have full reign.
The day that they don’t is the day that OUR heel is bruised, and WE crush his head under our feet.
Ed Chapman
Ed writes:
“Satan has a kingdom. And he reigns on earth, and God can’t dictate anything to him, until the book of revelation.
Look at the conversations Jesus had with the demons. Send us to the pigs. Are ya gonna punish is before the time? Dude, they have full reign.”
I would probably explain it more along the same principle you referred to earlier, being that God will not compel individuals to do his will against their will. Thus, if Satan deceives individuals into doing evil, God, in large part, will not prevent it. I would probably also enlarge on your statement that Satan’s power over believers is limited, not only by their ‘guardian angels’ but also by the power of prayer, which invites God to take direct action for our benefit, even when we don’t know the dangers that threaten us. I agree that God will not intervene directly to compel an individual to do some particular thing against their will, but I do not set aside his very real power to control many variables which limit the destructive intentions of Satan.
For instance, God might cause a band of traveling Egyptians to veer off their intended path by a few miles due to a sandstorm, so that they would be in just the right place at the right time to rescue Joseph from certain death. He would not need to compel Joseph’s brothers to give up their murderous plan, but simply provide them the irresistible opportunity to not only be rid of him, but benefit monetarily, and remain free of blood guilt. Wow, even better than murder! Being omniscient, God knew that they would choose this option. All of this can occur without God ‘ordaining’ or compelling any particular action on the part of any of the parties involved, and especially not ordaining sin. Unlike the Calvinist, I do not posit that God ordained the brothers’ murderous hearts, but foresaw and worked all things together ‘for good’, in spite of the brothers’ self-chosen intention to do evil.
Bingo! Right on! Perfect! I couldn’t have said it better.
But what I would add, is that this is a battle between God and Satan. They are the ones at war. We fight not against flesh and blood, but what?
Now, speaking of Joseph, again Joseph was prophesy of JESUS. The life of Joseph, to include his brothers, was a prophecy of Jesus and the Jews. Joseph’s life had to reflect what it did to give us a picture of Jesus. The pit…a reflection of hell that Jesus went to. The palace, a reflection that Jesus went to heaven to be seated at the right hand of the father. The pharaoh was the only one greater than Joseph, the father is greater than the son. It’s all about Jesus. The Jews put Jesus to death, and Jesus will reveal himself to them, in the like manner that Joseph revealed himself to his brethren. And Joseph had MERCY upon them. His brothers had no clue that he was Joseph, their brother. On like manner, the Jews have no clue that Jesus is their messiah.
All that is prophecy that of Jesus that God made known to us thru Joseph and his brothers. Then Judah and his son’s. There is much more. Have you heard that Noah’ S ark is prophecy of the rapture? Not many know that. But some do.
Come hell or high water! That has meaning.
Ed Chapman
TS00 writes, “Thus, if Satan deceives individuals into doing evil, God, in large part, will not prevent it.”
In other words, God is omnipotent and must choose not to prevent Satan deceiving people in order for Satan to do so. You agree with my position against Ed. At the least, you have not left behind everything you learned in Calvinism.
Even a broken clock is right twice a day. 😉 Rh knows full well the differences in our viewpoints. And he ignored the rest of my comment, which asserts that, as God does not determine all things, he can logically be said to sometimes intervene or sometimes not. The Calvinist position does not grant that option. If God ordains whatsoever comes to pass, he has ‘pre-intervened’ in every affair, ensuring that only what he has ordained comes to pass. To say that a Determining Deity who has preordained all things may or may not intervene is nonsense, but that has been pointed out to Rh many times.
TS00 writes, “To say that a Determining Deity who has preordained all things may or may not intervene is nonsense, but that has been pointed out to Rh many times.”
There is no reason for it to be nonsense and no reason has ever been given for it to be nonsense – it seems to be something people want to believe without cause. Again, we point to Isaiah 10 as the illustration of God’s work.
“O Assyrian, the rod of mine anger, and the staff in their hand is mine indignation….Howbeit he means not so, neither does his heart think so; but it is in his heart to destroy and cut off nations not a few…For he saith, By the strength of my hand I have done it, and by my wisdom; for I am prudent: and I have removed the bounds of the people, and have robbed their treasures, and I have put down the inhabitants like a valiant man:..Shall the axe boast itself against him that heweth therewith? or shall the saw magnify itself against him that shaketh it? as if the rod should shake itself against them that lift it up, or as if the staff should lift up itself, as if it were no wood.”
God did not make Assyria punish Israel – God merely loosened His restraints giving Assyria freedom to do to Israel that which it desired to do.
As pointed out earlier, my issue is not with the contention that God can and does intervene in the affairs of men. Nor is it a denial that he sometimes gives the self-serving, power-hungry motives of wicked men some free rein to accomplish his purposes.
That, however is entirely different from asserting that God himself masterminded, ordained and brought the sinful motives and actions of men to pass. The verses being interpreted here as God ordained this violent spree can easily be interpreted as God asserting that he can and will allow or put a stop to any man’s behavior. Once again – that is not in contention here.
The distinction between Calvinism and all other believers, which is obvious, but the attempt here is to blur it. Few deny God’s right, power and ability to intervene and manipulate events according to his own desires. Only Calvinists assert that he manipulates and ordains the hearts of men, bringing into existence the sin and wickedness that he allegedly needs to accomplish his plan.
One theory has God granting men the freedom of choice, then intervening in their self-chosen evil, choices made against and contrary to the will of God. In other words, even he most wicked, rebellious, sinful of men is foolish to think he can outsmart or defeat God’s ultimate plans.
The Calvinist theory has God thinking up, ordaining and bringing to pass all things, whatsoever comes to pass, the evil and the good. (Yeah, I know, the Great Divines tried to deny that their WC made God the author of Evil through mere assertion, but mere assertion does not make it so.) Under this theory, God brings into existence – meaning it originates in his mind and will – both the evil, depraved minds of men and the actions that result.’good’, God arbitrarily choosing and regenerating a select few, etc.
Nothing else is consistent with Calvinism’s theology of God being the sole mover and man being ‘cursed’ (made dead; isn’t that ‘killed’?) with inability to genuinely choose either good or evil. Calvinists attempt to murky the waters in order to disguise this necessary-to-their-system claim, but it is the true, essential assertion of a Divine Determinism. Modern Calvinists attempt to modify the meaning of ‘ordain’ and pretend that it is the same as ‘allow’, but this is neither its intended meaning, nor does it satisfy the demands of the system. Calvin made it very clear that his system did not assert God ‘allowing’ but solely ‘determining’ all things, evil and good. Under Determinism – you might guess from the name – God does not merely ‘allow’ evil, but determines it. Any Calvinist who wants to convert away from such determinism should do so upfront, instead of trying to make nonsense of the terms and confuse followers as to what is truly meant.
TS00 writes, “…my issue is not with the contention that God can and does intervene in the affairs of men. Nor is it a denial that he sometimes gives the self-serving, power-hungry motives of wicked men some free rein to accomplish his purposes….The Calvinist theory has God thinking up, ordaining and bringing to pass all things, whatsoever comes to pass, the evil and the good.”
So, does God do anything without thinking? Obviously not. So, God “can and does intervene in the affairs of men,” as it suits His purposes or God can purposely withhold such intervention – thereby ordaining even the wicked, sinful acts of people – when it suits His purposes.
Then, “Under this theory, God brings into existence – meaning it originates in his mind and will – both the evil, depraved minds of men and the actions that result.’good’, God arbitrarily choosing and regenerating a select few, etc.”
We see this in God’s creation of man, putting man in a garden and then opening the garden up for Satan to enter and tempt Eve with the subsequent events described in the Scriptures. Was God ignorant of what He was doing or unaware of the consequences of His actions – obviously not. Nothing happens that surprises God or was not known to Him before it happens – else He would not be God.
Rh writes:
“Was God ignorant of what He was doing or unaware of the consequences of His actions – obviously not. Nothing happens that surprises God or was not known to Him before it happens – else He would not be God.”
Perfect illustration of the Calvinist always attempting to dodge the bullet, change the subject or in any way possible murky the waters.
Of course, the claim was not made that God was ‘ignorant’, ‘surprised’ or without knowledge. That is just a dodge. Neither Determinism nor Free Men demand God’s ignorance or lack of knowledge. Yet one, and only one, demands that God determined evil rather than allowed man to freely choose it. Ah, but one must keep trying to avoid the ugly facts, eh?
I will say it, once again:
To allow men the freedom to choose evil against his will is NOT to determine evil.
Or to spell it out even more clearly, in direct terms Calvinists will almost always deny:
Determinism: God determines all evil as it is necessary to reveal his ‘goodness’ and essential to bringing him the glory he rightly deserves. Along with all things, God irresistibly ordains that evil must occur, brings it to pass, then pretends, through various subterfuges, that man actually ‘chooses’ the evil that was ordained for him to irresistibly do. God ordained all evil before man was ever created, but intends to punish those men he selected, designed and created to carry out his ordained evil will. A select few were randomly chosen to escape this God-planned genocide, and will be taught the Doctrines of Grace, rescued and will give God his much coveted ‘glory’ forever in return for not condemning them, like others, to Eternal Conscious Torment.
Free Men: God created man in his own image, with the freedom to choose to do his will or refuse his will. Having omniscience and foreknowledge, God knew that man would use that power of freedom to choose to choose disobedience and evil. God’s plan, in which we are still in the midst, is to both redeem those who will freely cooperate with him and to justly do away with evil once and for all.
TS00 writes, “To allow men the freedom to choose evil against his will is NOT to determine evil.”
Sure it is. God is sovereign – He has the power to stop anything from happening. For God to “allow” or “permit” requires that God have made a conscious decision that an event (such as sin) should happen. God decides that a person should be free to pursue sin – thus God allows or permits what He could prevent. God’s decision determines the outcome. God does not “allow” anything that He does not want to happen.
Sorry for editing fails.
“Any Calvinist who wants to convert away from such determinism should do so upfront, instead of trying to make nonsense of the terms and confuse followers as to what is truly meant.”
Which is my main beef with Calvinists, btw..
If you want to adopt the positions of your opponents, which are contrary to your doctrines, please do so openly and honestly, admitting the points on which you differ. Many a former Calvinist has done exactly that, as this, and many blogs exemplify.
But the norm among so-called Calvinists is the Piper Plan, which is to cling to the Calvinist system officially, then preach, teach and live as if it isn’t so. Sure, followers love what Piper teaches – because he simply asserts his Calvinism here and there, then makes nonsense of it in his application. My former pastor had the same skill, practicing no consistency or logic, but the people in the pew didn’t see it. Neither did I, for the most part, until I started paying careful attention, and taking notes. People heard what they were comfortable and familiar with, and didn’t go any deeper to see if it happened to be consistent with the Westminster Confession. Most didn’t know or care, as none came from a Calvinist background and didn’t genuinely embrace the theology. I have heard more than one Calvinist acknowledge that no modern Calvinist truly agrees with the WC. It’s sort of like the speed limit. Yuck, yuck, sure we know the law.
TS00,
You said:
“But the norm among so-called Calvinists is the Piper Plan, which is to cling to the Calvinist system officially, then preach, teach and live as if it isn’t so. Sure, followers love what Piper teaches – because he simply asserts his Calvinism here and there, then makes nonsense of it in his application.”
———
Exactly, and my point to Scott (who is not on this thread) many times. Every time I point this out Scott slams his fist and calls me disrespectful or makes some angelic statement about Piper.
OF COURSE (repeat 3x) Piper writes some great stuff! OF COURSE his associate Jon Bloom wrote a great book about having (your own) faith in Christ and why everyone must do it!
As we often say, Piper is at his best when he is teaching and writing like a non-Calvinist. One of his most successful books “Dont Waste Your Life” (note the title: we can or cannot waste it) is literally full of non-Calvinistic statements (some of which I have posted elsewhere). He gives many reasons for the harder-core Calvinists to call him a wimpy-Calvinist.
I have also recently made note of it with some quotes from the Cross 19 Conference video (sent to my in-box). Piper and others make some very, very contrary-to-Calvinism statements in that video. Mind-bending. They sound like John Wesley!
Again…. TS00…. as you know they are at their best when they steal our lines. But we all know that does not really fit (wink wink) with Calvinism.
TS00 writes, “Which is my main beef with Calvinists, btw..” [i.e., Any Calvinist who wants to convert away from such determinism should do so upfront, instead of trying to make nonsense of the terms and confuse followers as to what is truly meant.”]
So, you have issues with Piper and a former pastor “which is to cling to the Calvinist system officially, then preach, teach and live as if it isn’t so.” OK – I agree. One ought to walk the talk.
E24 writes, “They can do anything they want. Anything. And God has no say.”
If this were true then God would not be omnipotent, much less sovereign So, we disagree.
rhutchin states:
“E24 writes, “They can do anything they want. Anything. And God has no say.”
If this were true then God would not be omnipotent, much less sovereign So, we disagree.”
My response:
Of course we disagree. You hang onto that word “omnipotent”, and “sovereign” so dearly.
My take on those words are that God, in his soveignty, chose to NOT INTERFERE with “the god of this world”, who is the one who entices people to sin, for Satan has a kingdom, and God CANNOT touch his kingdom until THE END in Revelation.
My brother-in-law explains this perfectly. Evil is NECESSARY. Without evil in our exposure, we CANNOT “choose” to do good.
We have a FREEWILL choice to do good, and to do evil. Without evil, there is no choice. We are put on this earth to make a choice, by free will. That is why evil is present.
Satan “and his angels” was kicked from heaven to EARTH. Why Earth? Why is he still here? Why did God not banish him to Mercury or Mars or Jupiter? Why not another galaxy? He is here and God is PROVING A POINT to Satan, that we humans CAN choose him, by free will, EVEN THO SATAN tries to LURE US.
Earth is Satan’s kingdom and God is NOT going to interfere with his kingdom until God’s appointed time, and Satan is wanting to take as many humans with him as possible. God is good, Satan is evil. God does not tempt anyone. Satan does. Sin is FUN, being righteous is HARD “WORK” (The Law of do’s and don’ts).
Evil is necessary for good to be FREE WILL CHOSEN by us pesky humans. So, your Calvinism is garbage thru and thru.
Ed Chapman
E24 writes, “My take on those words are that God, in his soverignty, chose to NOT INTERFERE with “the god of this world”, who is the one who entices people to sin, for Satan has a kingdom,…”
This is no different than the Calvinist. In the exercise of His sovereignty, God chose to not interfere. I have been saying that all along. God chooses whether to interfere in the affairs of men (who are controlled by Satan). That does not mean that Satan (or man) is given free rein to do anything he wants. God still restrains people (e.g., preventing Jesus from being stoned, protecting Peter).
Then, “…and God CANNOT touch his kingdom until THE END in Revelation.”
God is still sovereign and can do anything He wants; it is by His choice that anything happens.
Then, “We have a FREEWILL choice to do good, and to do evil.”
Paul is pretty emphatic in saying that “There is none who does good.” We do that which is good in our eyes – or is beneficial to us – but not good in God’s eyes – that which glorifies God.
No, rhutchin, we are not saying the same thing. You take what I say, and twist it. You still say that God interferes, and I say that he does not interfere at all, therefore man has continuous free will, meaning that man and Satan can do anything they want, at anytime, and God is not going to stop it. Now, in regards to your example of Jesus, prophesy of Jesus had to come true, therefore, God did interfere with Satan’s plan. Prophecy is totally different than God predetermining someone doing good or doing evil. Satan is the enemy of God. Satan doesn’t want prophecy to come true. And Satan knows prophecy. This has nothing to do God determining anyone’s predetermined salvation or damnation. So, no, we are not saying the same thing.
E24 writes, “You still say that God interferes, and I say that he does not interfere at all,…”
You said “…God, in his soverignty, chose to NOT INTERFERE…” On this we agree – God chose. God has a free will and exercises His will as He pleases – in some cases, not to interfere.
Then, “I say that he does not interfere at all, therefore man has continuous free will, meaning that man and Satan can do anything they want, at anytime, and God is not going to stop it.”
Yet the OT and NT detail many instances where God does interfere in the affairs of men. God interfered in the case of Moses and Egypt, instructing Moses in the law, selecting Saul and then David to be king, the prophecies (as you note), impregnating Mary, Saul of Tarsus, etc. If God did not restrain sin, the world would be a mess as it was before the flood. To say, “God is not going to stop it,” seems naive to me.
rhutchin states:
“Yet the OT and NT detail many instances where God does interfere in the affairs of men. God interfered in the case of Moses and Egypt, instructing Moses in the law, selecting Saul and then David to be king, the prophecies (as you note), impregnating Mary, Saul of Tarsus, etc. If God did not restrain sin, the world would be a mess as it was before the flood. To say, “God is not going to stop it,” seems naive to me.”
You don’t listen very well, do you? Prophesies MUST come true, and Satan knows prophesy, and Satan tries to thwart prophesies so that they won’t come true. So God does interfere in order to thwart Satan’s plans to screw things up. Notice, if you will, that Satan does NOT ASK GOD’S PERMISSION to play his games.
But, as I keep saying, God is NOT interferring with a man’s free will choice of salvation or no salvation.
Moses is a TYPE OR SHADOW, of Jesus, prophesy. David is a type or shadow of Jesus, prophesy.
Saul of Tarsus was a BLIND JEW, which we have already discussed in the conversations regarding the Jews being the Elect of God, who blinded the Jews from the git go, and God is the only one to unblind them, and Joseph, being a type or shadow of Jesus (Prophesy) shows the message of the relationship that Jesus has with the Jews. Gentiles have NOTHING TO DO WITH THAT.
John 9:40-41 King James Version (KJV)
40 And some of the Pharisees which were with him heard these words, and said unto him, Are we blind also?
41 Jesus said unto them, If ye were blind, ye should have no sin: but now ye say, We see; therefore your sin remaineth.
Read that last verse CLOSELY.
God does not interfere with any Gentiles decision to follow him. Once God is IN YOU, then God will lead you…but you still have the free will ability to GRIEVE the Holy Spirit and NOT do what the Holy Spirit wants you to do.
Ed Chapman
E24 writes, ” God is NOT interferring with a man’s free will choice of salvation or no salvation.”
Sure He is.
“No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him:”
“Even when we were dead in sins, [God] hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved;)”
“Giving thanks unto the Father, which hath made us meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light:”
” our gospel came not unto you in word only, but also in power, and in the Holy Ghost, and in much assurance; ”
“Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;”
No, he isn’t.
Again, you don’t seem to listen. You keep harping on the “No man can” slogan as if it’s supposed to mean something significant. I keep telling you that his audience was the Jews. You keep telling me that “No one” means everyone. Look at the context. Our fathers did not eat manna in the desert. The conversation was to the blind Jews only. Jesus came only for the lost sheep of the house of Israel. Everyone knows that Jesus is not discussing the Gentiles. Except for Calvinists. But tell me… how does God draw them? The bible is the only way. Convincing people. God’s words in the bible. Not some magic act that you call the sovereignty of God.
Furthermore, the quickening, or make alive is as result of believing, not made alive to believe.
Your belief system is just weird.
Ed Chapman
E24 writes, “You keep telling me that “No one” means everyone. Look at the context.”
“No one” means “No one.” Had Jesus wanted to limit the context as you want, He could have said, “You cannot come.” Jesus meaning is clear, “No one can…” meaning “You cannot…” and neither can anyone else.
E24 writes, “Furthermore, the quickening, or make alive is as result of believing, not made alive to believe.”
Ephesians 2, ““Even when we were dead in sins, [God] hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved;)” The verse does not substantiate your claim.
Rh writes:
“E24 writes, “Furthermore, the quickening, or make alive is as result of believing, not made alive to believe.”
Ephesians 2, ““Even when we were dead in sins, [God] hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved;)” The verse does not substantiate your claim.”
One might, if in pursuit of objective, fuller understanding, rather than simply looking to defend one’s presuppositions, ask what possible interpretations can be made of συνεζωοποίησεν (synezōopoiēsen). Strong’s defines this as ‘to make alive together with’. But this definition does not, of course, presuppose how, or in what manner anyone is made alive.
Among the possibilities, and I’m sure there could be others, I would suggest:
1) A supernatural, mystical act of God
2) An awakening made possible by someone or something
3) A willingness to hear and respond to what was once ignored or rejected
What an objective person would acknowledge is that this being made alive does not demand a literal resurrection of a biologically dead person. In fact, few believe that those who are ‘made alive with Christ’ were literally, biologically dead as was Lazarus.
I was once unaware, blind, ‘dead’, if you will, to much of the abuse, oppression and tyranny that exists on earth, and there is, without doubt, much that I am yet unaware of. I only became aware of, or alive to the reality of the problem, upon receiving, evaluating and honestly processing information that I did not once have. It doesn’t matter, at this point, whether I was too young, lived in a bubble, rejected all foreign reports as ‘Fake News’ or whatever left me bereft of the information; I was ‘dead’ to a very real issue, which some around me understood and had attempted to make me aware of, for a very long time.
This illustrates one sort of ‘being made alive’ or awakening, and it is fairly common. We are ignorant of all things until we are ‘made aware’ by some process, be it personal experience, education or revelation.
Another interpretation of this verse might be that until Christ removed the burden of guilt and fear of death which hung over all men as a great cloud, we were unable and/or unwilling to honestly evaluate our lives. If condemnation and death is our only option, we will, in order to preserve some illusion of hope and joy, refuse to think of our certain and unavoidable fate as long as possible. Jesus, with his atonement for sin, changed all of that!
While we were yet sinners and unaware of the true scope of the problem, Jesus arrived on the scene to ‘take away the sin of the world’ and eliminate the curse, and fear, of sin and death. For the first time since the original innocence of Adam, we could consider our lives, our actions and our eternal destiny – because we had options. We had hope! We could stop compartmentalizing our minds to avoid unpleasant realities, and listen to and respond to the voice of God impressing upon our spirits the wrongness of our selfish existence and the hope that there just might be something better.
This is simply an illustration of how an objective person begins to consider the many possibilities of the meaning of a word or words, and is by no means comprehensive. But the moment a person is convinced that their interpretation – or the one that they have been taught – is the only possible, one true meaning of the word or words they are confronting, is the moment they lose all hope of ever discovering error.
I cannot, and do not, claim to have all the answers. I can assure you that neither do you, or anyone else. Keep looking, keep thinking, keep asking hard questions. Truth is unafraid of cross-examination.
TS00,
The biblical story that best illustrates this is in Luke 15, the Prodigal son.
He was called “dead” twice by Christ (telling the story).
Did he get quickened by the father? No. What did the father do? Wait.
While he was in a “far away land” he “came to his senses” and journeyed to the father.
Calvinists—- even “teacher/ expositor” MacArthur call him the “seeking father,” which shows you to what extent they will go to justify their presuppositions and position.
Now…. if Calvinism is true…. and their claims that “we will just boast about being better than someone because we had faith” (silly straw man) …if that claim is true…. in theory, the son should come home saying, “Aren’t you glad I found my way to you Dad?”
Nah, he doesnt. He is contrite and realizes the father’s acceptance is grace. On the condition that the son come.
FOH writes, “Did he get quickened by the father? No. What did the father do? Wait.”
Actually, we are not told how this came about except in response to his selfish desire – “when he came to his senses, he said, ‘How many of my father’s hired men have more than enough bread, but I am dying here with hunger! I will get up and go to my father, and will say to him, “Father, I have sinned against heaven, and in your sight; I am no longer worthy to be called your son; make me as one of your hired men.”’
Why starve when he could grovel before his father and eat sumptuously. What exactly was his sin? Being too lazy to work, perhaps, so that the only job available to feeding the swine. Why do you suppose he doesn’t go back to his father and say, “I have wasted my life – and my inheritance – in riotous living; have mercy on me.” Notice how the boy says, “I am no longer worthy,” rather than “I was never worthy.”
I have to watch as Calvinists comically try to make the prodigal story fit.
John MacArthur says it was the “seeking father”…. others say the son was not contrite but selfish.
And yet…. and yet…. the story in the Bible tells us that he was “dead” and “far away”—not being irresistibly-graced to come, and he “came to his senses”. All the “we dont know the whole story” excuses in the world wont change that.
Like the rich, young ruler…who resisted Christ’s grace…… Answer: “Hey, we dont know the whole story.”
Sure we do…. it’s all there. It just doesnt fit Augustine’s Greek philosophical pattern so disclaim the story as it is.
FOH writes, “Like the rich, young ruler…who resisted Christ’s grace…… Answer: “Hey, we dont know the whole story.” ”
The expected outcome – “No one can come to me.”
TS00 writes, ‘3) A willingness to hear and respond to what was once ignored or rejected”
This is negated by the initial condition, “Even when we were dead in sins,…” that says the person is not willing to hear and respond to what was once ignored or rejected.” That which was once ignored or rejected is still ignored or rejected.
Then, “What an objective person would acknowledge is that this being made alive does not demand a literal resurrection of a biologically dead person.”
Yes, this is talking about a spiritual condition (that might be likened to a physical condition).
Then, “I was once unaware, blind, ‘dead’, if you will, to much of the abuse, oppression and tyranny that exists on earth, and there is, without doubt, much that I am yet unaware of. I only became aware of, or alive to the reality of the problem, upon receiving, evaluating and honestly processing information that I did not once have.”
This requires that your blindness be removed. Once you can see, a whole new world opens up for you. That is Paul’s point (and emphasizes what Jesus said). Jesus said, “No one can come to me…” That’s because people are blind and cannot see Jesus to come to Him.
TS00,
You see that is all relative. Make up your own definitions. They get a lot of miles out of the word “dead”.
Obviously we are not “dead in our sins”—- in that we have no life, breath (physically dead)…. so it cant mean that.
Obviously the Prodigal was “dead” — and still came back contritely from “a far away land,” when he “came to his senses,” …. so “dead” can’t mean we cannot think or have sense. Which is also why the Bible says Paul reasons with, convinces, persuades people. You aint dead if you can be reasoned with or persuaded!
Obviously we are “dead to sin” and still do it. “Buried in Christ” but still wander into sin…. so dead can’t mean incapable.
But no…. with all that….. they come up with their own definition of dead. Why? Because they have to –to make their scaffolding stand.
TS00,
I’m gonna jump in here, and HOPE that rhutchin also reads this…I might respond to rhutchin directly later. I am still AWAKENING as I worked last night, which is the reason for my silence today so far, and I awake to many comments made, and I’m just not really into commenting at the moment except for this one.
So, to all…
Does ANYONE know what “make alive” even means?
I, myself, a committee of one, explained this LONG AGO, at the inception of the BORN DEAD post by Dr. Flowers.
But, I will REVIEW this once again.
1. LIFE REQUIRES A BODY AND A SPIRIT LIVING IN THAT BODY.
2. Without the spirit, the body is DEAD. James 2:26, 1 Thessalonians 5:23 (Spirit and Soul and Body).
3. A spirit is a GHOST. Hence the interchangable term, Holy Ghost, Holy Spirit. Same same!
The above is an indication of what NATURAL, or to put another way, CARNAL LIFE AND NATURAL DEATH IS.
But we are not discussing what is NATURAL OR CARNAL, now are we? NOPE!
We are discussing SPIRITUAL Life, and Spiritual Death.
What is that?
SIMPLE.
It’s the SAME AS ABOVE, only except God’s Spirit, aka the HOLY SPIRIT (GHOST) is the additional equation.
IF God’s spirit is IN YOU, then you are spiritually alive. If God’s spirit is NOT in you, then you are spiritually dead.
We are NOT BORN DEAD. We die a spiritual death. The Calvinists claim that we are already BORN DEAD. But that is not true.
We are Carnally born with God already IN us. JUST LIKE THE PRODIGAL SON WAS WITH HIS FATHER.
Then we die a spiritual death when we want to GO DO THINGS OUR WAY (Living in Sin…and quite frankly, ENJOYING IT…Let’s face it…sin is indeed FUN FOR A SEASON. If you haven’t tried it…go out and, as Luther said, SIN BOLDLY! Whoever said that sin isn’t fun, didn’t do it right! I say again, sin is fun!
But just like the Prodigal son, he went out and wanted to do things HIS WAY, and THAT is the moment that he SPIRITUALLY DIED, and became SPIRITUALLY DEAD to his own father.
But a Calvinist will have this guy dead at birth?
But at some point, sin was not fun anymore…the end result of sin was destitute, lonelieness, emptiness, no direction, etc.
So, that is when we all come to our own senses (FREE WILL TO COME HOME) AND humbly ask dad to forgive us, stating, “I’m not worthy”.
But dad is SO HAPPY, that he decides to have a partyt in our honor.
GOD COMES BACK INTO OUR BODY!
That is made alive again, when God’s spirit COMES BACK to our body, and that is BORN AGAIN. The word AGAIN indicates that we were PREVIOUSLY spiritually alive ONCE BEFORE. But no Calvinist will ever believe that in a million years. Calvinists can’t, since they believfe that we were born dead.
Life, THEN DEATH, then life again. And that is the same procedure of our existence. LIfe, then death, the the resurrection.
The prodigal son did NOT start out being DEAD. He was alive first, then he was considered dead when he voluntarily left his fathers house.
I have no idea why ANYONE thinks that death comes first. How is that even possible?
The prodigal son is the ULTIMATE example showing how that Calvinists are completely WRONG to assert that we are BORN DEAD.
That’s all I will say for now…I’m gonna relax today!
Ed Chapman
E24 writes, “We are NOT BORN DEAD. We die a spiritual death. The Calvinists claim that we are already BORN DEAD. But that is not true.”
“That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.” The physical birth is flesh born of flesh; one is then reborn of the Spirit. “But a Calvinist will have this guy dead at birth? ” – Yes, spiritually dead, dead in trespasses and sin and unable to see or enter the kingdom of heaven.
Then, “So, that is when we all come to our own senses (FREE WILL TO COME HOME) AND humbly ask dad to forgive us, stating, “I’m not worthy”.”
How this happen absent a work of the Spirit (John 3)?
rhutchin,
You state:
“That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.”
My response:
No kidding? Really? I never would have known that had you not brought that to my attention! NOT!
The reason that Jesus said that was because Nicodemus was discussing the flesh, and Jesus was NOT discussing the flesh.
Jesus was discussing the spirit, NOT the flesh, therefore, your conclusion, as is many, that Jesus was discussing the flesh, AND spirit is totally way off base.
Jesus was ONLY discussing the spirit. NOT the flesh.
Jesus was correcting Nicodemus to STOP THINKING ABOUT THE FLESH beause it has NOTHING TO DO WITH THE FLESH.
Jesus was NOT DISCUSSING CARNAL BIRTH at all. And Jesus had to tell Nicodemus, “Dude, I’m not discussing natural carnal birth and death. I’m talking about spiritual death and spiritual REBIRTH called Born Again.”
So, my advice to you, stop thinking that Jesus was discussing BOTH carnal birth PLUS spiritual birth. He wasn’t. He was only discussing spiritual REBIRTH. Nicodemus was discussing carnal, and Jesus was like, “I’m not discussing anything about your natural birth at all.”
Ed Chapman
E24 writes, ‘Jesus was ONLY discussing the spirit. NOT the flesh.
Jesus was correcting Nicodemus to STOP THINKING ABOUT THE FLESH because it has NOTHING TO DO WITH THE FLESH.”
You had said, ““We are NOT BORN DEAD. We die a spiritual death. The Calvinists claim that we are already BORN DEAD. But that is not true.” What you seem to understand now is that there is a distinction between the flesh and the spirit and one must be reborn before receiving the spirit, So, what is the flesh without the spirit – Dead (spiritually, that is).
The word regeneration is in the bible only twice, and on both occasions, it only pertains to the Jews. Gentiles do not judge the 12 tribes of Israel.
Ed Chapman
E24 writes, “The word regeneration is in the bible only twice, and on both occasions, it only pertains to the Jews.”
“He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit, whom He poured out upon us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, that being justified by His grace we might be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life.”
God saved “us.” That which follows applies to those God has saved. You say God saves Jews; I say God saves Jews and gentiles. Titus does not support your claim.
Works of righteousness is the deeds of THE LAW. Since when were Gentiles under the law? We have done? We Gentiles have never done WORKS of righteousness. Ever. Only those under the law have. Jews.
Ed Chapman
rhutchin,
You keep harping on “there is none righteous”, completely ignoring our discussion, which I clearly showed proof that there are righteous. Abel was righteous. 2 people in the gospels were righteous. And many more that I mentioned as well. So your argument referencing “No one righteous” is twisted, as well.
Ed Chapman
E24 writes, “You keep harping on “there is none righteous”, completely ignoring our discussion, which I clearly showed proof that there are righteous. Abel was righteous.”
So, harmonize Paul’s argument w/ Abel, et al. Don’t just complain.
rhutchin,
You want harmony? What about Melody? Well, here ya go:
Hebrews 11:6
But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.
No one is righteous based on the law.
Romans 1:17
For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith.
***********Romans 4:5**********************
But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.
Faith is the ONLY REASON that anyone is righteous. Abraham, Abel, Zacharias, etc., had faith, therefore, they were righteous. No one is righteous in the law. These were righteous apart from the law, even those under the law were righteous because of faith.
Ed Chapman
E24 writes, “Faith is the ONLY REASON that anyone is righteous. ”
What does Paul say, “brethren, pray for us, that the word of the Lord may have free course, and be glorified, even as it is with you: And that we may be delivered from unreasonable and wicked men: for all men have not faith.”
“Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.”
“So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.”
“before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed.
“For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:”
Dissect Hebrews 11:1 using a common dictionary to the lowest common denominator. You will see that faith is knowing that you will get what you are waiting for.
TS00,
You said that Calvinists “don’t speak much of Satan.”
You know they invented “Total Depravity” (man can do no good at all—totally depraved).
They outrun all of these ideas to make the TD doctrine:
A. man is “dead” and
B. cannot see the Gospel (“blinded by Satan” or he would see).
C. It if foolishness to him to the point of being incapable of believing.
Man is “of the Devil” and can only be rescued when forced into regeneration.
Now, 1 John 3:8 tell us that, “The one who does what is sinful is of the devil, because the devil has been sinning from the beginning. The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the devil’s work.”
Even believers do what is sinful. They are “of the devil” (with those actions) — but not in such as way that they cannot repent. Just like we say non-believers are “of the devil” but not in such a way as it is impossible to repent.
Of course I have already explained many times that the prodigal son is “dead” (Christ says it twice) yet he “comes to his senses” while “in a far away land” while the father waits….so I wont go into that part.
It was the devil that lured Eve….. (2 Co 11:3) “But I am afraid that just as Eve was deceived by the serpent’s cunning, your minds may somehow be led astray from your sincere and pure devotion to Christ.”
And apparently that same devil can lead us “astray from our sincere and pure devotion to Christ.”
Peter confirms this (1 Peter 5:8) “Be alert and of sober mind. Your enemy the devil prowls around like a roaring lion looking for someone to devour. Resist him, standing firm in the faith.”
So, if he is not resisted, he can devour.
There is no small wonder why Calvinists “don’t speak much of Satan.”
chapmaned24 writes, “NONE OF THAT IS EVEN SLIGHTLY TRUE.
Shall we discuss your favorite story about the Pharaoh? Isn’t that where you get your doctrine?”
It is based on the doctrine of omnipotence. God is omnipotent and can prevent TS00 doing anythings he purposes. TS00 can only do that which God determines he should do – to do God’s will.
Do you oppose the doctrine of omnipotence and God’s ability to accomplish His will in all things?
Who invented that doctrine? Who concluded that this is how God conducts business?
Scripture clearly states what God’s will is.
1 Timothy 2:4
Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.
Will God get his way here? NO.
Do me a favor. Go to biblegateway.com. Do a key word search for the words will, and God.
You will see that just because God wills something, that does not mean that it will come true.
1 Thes 4:3
For this is the will of God, even your sanctification, that ye should abstain from fornication:
Just because God wills that we abstain from fornication, that does not mean that we will.
I don’t believe in your DEFINITION of the sovereignty of God. I believe that God purposefully steps back and let’s is his creation make a choice whether to follow him or not. Without intervening.
Prophecy is the only reason that God manipulates things.
Those who are already following God, God will influence them to do what is right. But he won’t manipulate them to do what is right.
So, short answer, no, I don’t believe what you believe.
I call what you believe to be doctrine of devils. And that we are to warn people to stay away from your religion at all cost.
Ed Chapman
C24,
Thanks.
I dont believe as strongly as you do about Calvinism, but I do agree on this.
They START with a man-made definition of “sovereignty” and “omnipotence” and then work backwards. That leaves them with the obligation to teach that all that happens is God’s will (sin, Holocaust, rape, torture)….. for His glory.
We are told not to do something…. but after we do it …. oh well that was for His glory too!
I have been making the point for over a year that God does not always get what He wants….. but I no longer dialog with RH as he goes round and round in circles.
Saying “all” means “all kinds of” men.
Saying “abstain from fornication”…. means what, “some fornication” or “all kinds”?
Nah…. they just start with the answer and then try to fit everything else in their box.
FOH,
You should read what Thomas Jefferson had to say about Calvinism.
Thomas Jefferson, however, seems to get a bad rap from the Baptists, tho.
They call him a deist. But they neglect to define that word as Thomas Jefferson understood it to be. They think that when Jefferson used the term, Nature’s God, that Jefferson meant admin impersonal God, hence, today’s use of the word deist.
Jefferson called the Jews deists. His point, the belief in one God.
Jefferson did not believe in the trinity. 3 people playing the role of one God.
Many didn’t. They did not trust the church of England in anything they taught. And Ben Franklin did not think that God would punish those who did not believe in the deity of Jesus, cuz they will find out when they die.
And you know that believing in the deity of Jesus is a prerequisite to being a Baptist.
I thank God I’m not a Baptist. No offence to anyone here that is.
I believe that Jesus is God. I am a deist.
I’d love to hear the backlash on that! Lol.
Hear me again. I believe that Jesus is God. I’m a deist. I do not believe in the trinity.
The trinity is also a man made CATHOLIC doctrine.
I believe in the Father. I believe in the SON. I believe in the Holy Spirit. I believe in the deity of Jesus. But I don’t believe in 3 people playing the role of one God.
How?
Father = John 4:24 A Spirit
Son = BODY OF CHRIST
Holy Spirit = “The mind (soul) of Christ).
That’s one person, hence deist. Not three people.
Thomas Jefferson said he is a Christian. I take him at his word, even if he didn’t believe that Jesus is God, even if he didn’t believe in the virgin birth.
No one trusted the church of England, and we gotta keep that in mind when we see the word deist as it pertained to the 18th century.
Will God send people to hell who claim to be followers of Jesus who doubt his divinity? I don’t think so, and neither did Benjamin Franklin.
But, seek and read what Jefferson said about Calvinism.
Ed Chapman
Ed, I agree with your line of thinking. I would posit that Calvinism, and its ‘chosen people’ theology paved the way for the crimes of Imperialism, Colonialism and Exceptionalism that linger yet today. The moment you grant the false idea that any person or group of people is more valuable than another, you open the door to slavery, war, injustice and oppression. The explosion of American Exceptionalism coincides directly with the re-bloom of Calvinism in our land.
True Christlikeness forbids us to take the innocent lives of others because we ‘suspect’ they may someday seek us harm. How is it that so many so-called followers of Jesus embrace the theory of pre-emptive strikes and mass destruction of entire populations? Such believe their own lives and safety are more important that the lives and safety of the men, women and children who have been snuffed out by bombs and other weapons of mass destruction in the pursuit of ‘freedom’. Freedom for ‘some’ at the expense of all others, who are ‘dispensable’. Sound familiar?
Hold on TS00,
I’m a veteran of the US Navy, and I do indeed believe in American Acceptionalism. I believe in the sovereignty of the USA. I believe in the God given rights that our founding fathers acknowledged that most nations do not. I believe in out of many, one. I do not believe in diversity. I do believe that America is better than any nation on God’s Green Earth. I believe in the rule of law. Not the law of rule. I believe in what our founding fathers set up regarding executive, legislative, and judicial, therefore any injustices are taken care of, by war, of necessary. George Washington was a Christian, and he was a general in the army. Killing in war is not a sin. Jesus discusses this in the topic of counting the cost of following him. Jesus did not condemn the Roman soldiers. As a matter of fact, he commended one of having more faith than anyone else he has come across.
FOH writes, “They START with a man-made definition of “sovereignty” and “omnipotence” and then work backwards.”
What is your definition of “omnipotence”? I doubt that it is different than mine.
chapmaned24 writes, ” I believe that God purposefully steps back and let’s is his creation make a choice whether to follow him or not. Without intervening…So, short answer, no, I don’t believe what you believe.”
Yes, “God purposefully (willfully) steps back…” and that which happens is God’s will as God purposely stepped back without which the actions could not happen. I don’t see you disagreeing on this point.
rhutchin,
Man, are you deaf? Dude, i showed
I’m a passenger on a bumpy gravel road. My, send key hit…oops
rhutchin,
I showed you two verses that proves that God does NOT get everything he wills. Then I told you to do a word search for the words GOD, and WILL, so you can see more examples that God doesn’t always get what he wills.
You really do need to acknowledge that, and you need to refine your debating skills, too.
c4 writes, “I showed you two verses that proves that God does NOT get everything he wills.”
God wills to give people freedom to choose how they will behave but reserves the right to overrule whatever they do. In the end, because God is omnipotent, God is always the final arbiter of all that happens and necessarily so – thus, God’s will is always done.
rhitchin,
Again, your debating skills needs refining.
I provided two verses that clearly shows that God does not get everything he wills. God’s will is not always done.
Prophecy is the only thing that God wills that will be done.
God leaves the decision to follow him solely on our decisions. Not his predetermined will.
God does not always get what he wants.
He wills that all men be saved and come to the truth.
God won’t get that.
Chapman posted this : “God leaves the decision to follow him solely on our decisions. Not his predetermined will.”
——–Here’s my Response———-
But Chapman’s so called free will is impotent by the time God decides to terminate Chapman’s life. Chapman can’t say to God “NO, I don’t permit you to terminate my life”. So… where is Chapman’s freedom now? God has already predetermined the length of Chapman’s life on earth but Chapman does not know when his life on earth would end.
jtleosala,
You had said:
“But Chapman’s so called free will is impotent by the time God decides to terminate Chapman’s life. Chapman can’t say to God “NO, I don’t permit you to terminate my life”. So… where is Chapman’s freedom now? God has already predetermined the length of Chapman’s life on earth but Chapman does not know when his life on earth would end.”
God does indeed have CONTROL regarding to TAKE our life. But you act as tho God doesn’t give US a choice to live or die.
Some people commit suicide, cutting their life short, and you cannot blame God on that. God knew that King Saul would take his own life. God didn’t take it.
God has a boundary regarrding how long we CAN live, but we have the free will choice to END IT prematurely.
Deuteronomy 30:19
I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live:
Choose life. It does not say that God chose life for you, or that God chose death for you.
But THIS life is not what it’s all about. God has decreed that there is such a thing as Eternal Life, where NO ONE ever dies. And they get that by CHOOSING LIFE, not that it was DECREED.
Ed Chapman
Chapman posted this one: “Prophecy is the only thing that God wills that will be done.”
——-Here’s My Response———-
God’s written word are what we need now. We don’t need anymore those prophecies nowadays. Most of them are false.
jtleosala,
You had said:
God’s written word are what we need now. We don’t need anymore those prophecies nowadays. Most of them are false.
My response:
I agree. The problem is, most of mankind, including you, and me, have NO CLUE what “all” of the FUTURE prophesies are in the written word of God. You rightly say, “Most of them are false”, meaning also that you do acknowledge that “some of them are true”. But I posit that there are MANY MANY more that we just have NO CLUE about, that some have proclaimed, but we (you included), call those people heretics.
The people that I find that are MORE interested in future prophesy (besides the few nutcases that have already proclaimed the end of the word, proven false), are the Pentecostals. Some say that they falsely proclaim the rapture that some say was an invention by someone named Darby. But I disagree with that completely, because I see the rapture in the story of Noah’s Ark, which, of course, comes from the Word of God. And where did I learn this from? Pentecostals.
Jesus is the Ark. The Ark, above the earth. Destruction below. Christians in Jesus protected FROM the judgment below.
Many in your circles condemn those who are dispensationalists, or believe in the rapture, but I see it very clearly.
I’m not a Pentecostal, because I believe that many of them FAKE the speaking in tongues, which I do believe in. I think that some are PRESSURED into faking it, too. I also disagree with their stance on how they can dress, wearing 18th century clothing, etc.
But, the Baptists…tisk tisk…they don’t delve into the Word of God like the Pentecostals do, regarding prophesies They can’t see prophesies, because their preachers are soley expository driven.
Ed Chapman
Yes Ed, We have common beliefs about Prophecies in the Bible, including those that are fake Speaking in Tongues, wearing 18th century clothing, etc. I also like what you have said, “Jesus is the Ark, the Ark above the earth”.
God bless you…
jtleosala,
God Bless you, too!!!!
Ed Chapman
rhutchin,
You keep harping on “there is none righteous”, completely ignoring our discussion, which I clearly showed proof that there are righteous. Abel was righteous. 2 people in the gospels were righteous. And many more that I mentioned as well. So your argument referencing “No one righteous” is twisted, as well.
Ed Chapman
————Just want to react on the above statement directed to RH——–
Those people in the Bible cited as righteous like Abel, Zacharias etc. does not mean they are sinless. If so, then they don’t need anymore Christ’s provision of Salvation. They are righteous in a sense that they were striving to live a life pleasing in God’s sight before their fellowmen.
jtleosala,
You had said:
“Those people in the Bible cited as righteous like Abel, Zacharias etc. does not mean they are sinless. If so, then they don’t need anymore Christ’s provision of Salvation. They are righteous in a sense that they were striving to live a life pleasing in God’s sight before their fellowmen.”
My response:
Very much agree! Faith is the only thing that pleases God.
Hebrews 11:6
But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.
No one is righteous based on the law.
Romans 1:17
For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith.
***********Romans 4:5**********************
But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.
Faith is the ONLY REASON that anyone is righteous. Abraham, Abel, Zacharias, etc., had faith, therefore, they were righteous. No one is righteous in the law. These were righteous apart from the law, even those under the law were righteous because of faith.
Ed Chapman
Hi Ed,
May I ask your doctrine concerning these ones:
1. Where did your faith originates?
2. How did it come to you?
3. Is it a prevenient grace?
4. Do you think Adam and Eve possess faith since they were created?
jt,
1. I can’t remember a time that I didn’t believe in God. Regarding Jesus, I remember someone stating that Jesus is God. At that time, I could not prove it. But after a Jehovah’s Witness had a discussion with me, and knowing that the whole world believes them to be a cult, I decided to prove once and for all, that Jesus is God. From that moment on, my faith grew, my interest in the Bible grew, and I decided to read and study the Bible.
Since this is a Jewish Book, I had an interest in Jewish reasonings as well.
Then I started wondering why the 7th Day Adventists INSIST on going to church on Saturday, condemning those going to church on Sunday.
Then I started noticing a trend. EVERYONE BASHING THE CATHOLICS. And I wanted to know why.
I kept studying, and studying…and based on my study, it is USELESS to base my beliefs on what OTHERS, who are now dead, DECIDED FOR ME. So, I wanted to decide FOR MYSELF.
Christians are always being accused of not being CRITICAL THINKERS. Well, I didn’t want to be accused of that. I wanted to be convinced in my own mind, by my own study. Not by someone else’s mandates.
I do NOT believe in prevenient grace. I think I told you that once before already.
Adam and Eve did not NEED FAITH, so to speak. God was PRESENT with them in the Garden. What kind of faith are you discussing?
They believed in God. He was RIGHT THERE, and they had conversations. I’m not sure what you mean by your question of did they have faith. What faith did they need if God was RIGHT THERE?
Ed Chapman
The faith I am referring to is the one being exercised by man in accessing God.
How about you Ed, How did you get that faith of yours since that you declare here that you believe in God the Father as well as to Jesus as God?
Thanks Ed.
jtleosala,
Exercised by man in accessing God?????????????????????
I think we’ve been over this time and time and time again.
Accessing God after KNOWLEDGE of sin requires a SACRIFICE, and God showed them what that is by killing (shedding blood) of an animal.
Knowledge of sin separates man from God, and a sacrifice RESUMES access to God.
Why do you keep referring that man has NO ACCESS TO GOD unless God does the intervening? I don’t see ANY prevenient grace in play, and I don’t see any irresistible grace in play at all. Just man excersizing a simple task of sacrificing an animal.
How did I get faith?
By reading the Bible. Believing God’s words. NO PREVENIENT OR IRRESISTABLE GRACE in play. You people debate those phrases, WE DON’T, as we consider those phrases irrelevant.
Your REFORM debates about those words include Calvinists, Armenians, and Pala…whatever that word is or semi-Pala…whatever that word is. Most Christians don’t belong to ANY of those categories. But, it’s interesting to listen to you reformers, because you people have decided that those are the ONLY categories available. I’m always baffled at that.
You average Christian that are NOT REFORM has no clue or idea what those names are, or their meanings. Those words mean nothing to me. I’m not a Catholic, nor a REFORM, so why would I care what they think?
I’m NOT even a PROTESTANT. What am I protesting? The word Protestant suggests a PROTEST, right? I’m not protesting against the Catholics…you people are, hence the word protestant and reform. I don’t care what the Catholics believe. I am not a Catholic.
We don’t believe that anyone needs God’s intervention to believe or even to be saved. We don’t believe in the word Elect as you do, either. We believe that the Jews are the Elect, not the Gentiles. A saved Gentile is NOT equated to the Elect.
Faith is NOT a work.
You people have a distorted use of the word “WORK”. Work, as it is used in the bible, pertains to the 613 COMMANDMENTS of the Old Covenant. Nothing more than that, and certainly NOT FAITH. Faith is NOT GIVEN as a gift in order to believe.
Ed Chapman
E24 writes, “You people debate those phrases, WE DON’T, as we consider those phrases irrelevant. ”
Who are “WE”?
We, are Christians who don’t believe in either prevenient or irresistible grace. People who believe in those words are reformers, who would have remained Catholic had the Catholic church reformed themselves. I’m not a reformer, and I’m not a Catholic. Christianity exists outside of those. We are not Calvinists, we are not Armenians, we are not palagian or semi palagian. We are not wesleyism, we are not Lutherans. What’s a protestant? Is Catholicism associated with that word? Why are you protesting Catholicism? Did you really care what they believe? Obviously you do, otherwise you would not need classified as a reformer. What are you reforming? When will you be finished reforming?
Ed Chapman
E24 writes., “We, are Christians who don’t believe in either prevenient or irresistible grace.”
What do you call the grace by which people are saved?
rhutchin asks:
“What do you call the grave by which people are saved?”
My response:
First of all, we don’t believe that there is any such thing as “BY WHICH” in the equation of grace.
But to answer your question, we just call it “grace”. No antecedents. No adjectives.
The “by which” is “YOUR faith”, and THEN you RECEIVE grace as a gift.
Believe is the only prerequisit.
There is no such thing as God intervening.
What God did was to give us his WORD. Some people call that the bible.
We read the evidence, then we decide in our own mind.
For those who don’t have a bible, we have evangelicals, teachers, preachers, etc.
Ed Chapman
Ed writes:
“What God did was to give us his WORD. Some people call that the bible.”
I would just offer that some people call that ‘Jesus’.
The Word of God became flesh, so that God’s love was no longer ‘just’ a bunch of words, but was demonstrated clearly, that all may know and believe in its truth. Anyone can twist and distort words, and come up with pretty much whatever meaning they wish. That’s why the testimony to God’s character and actions does not consist merely of the writings of men, (which testify to actual events) but were actually manifested, words becoming deeds.
TS00,
I surely hope you are not discrediting the words of the bible, belittling it as just a bunch of words. I wasn’t alive when Jesus walked the planet. But time and time again Jesus asks, HAVE YOU NOT READ? Time and time again, the words, AS IT IS WRITTEN, is in the bible.
I don’t consider any of the bible to be the writings of men. I don’t know anybody that does, either.
I’m quite surprised that you would say such stuff.
Are you suggesting that we just ditch bible? Just keep the red letter words?
Yikes! The NT teaches us to go back to the Hebrew scriptures and to re-read it.
You may think that they are the words of man, but I consider it to be the word of God. I have no idea why you can’t see the character of God in the bible outside of the 33 years of the life of Jesus.
Jesus is LOGOS, what does that mean?
What’s the difference between that word and RHEMA?
WHAT is rhema?
All of the words in the bible are the words of Jesus, hence, the word, LOGOS. It’s not his fault that man twists his words.
Ed Chapman
I would not grant most of your extreme claims, (and once charged others with myself), but I do have a somewhat more nuanced perspective than I once did. The scripture that Jesus spoke of obviously did not include the text of what we call the New Testament, which was selected by men much later. There remains disagreement as to what should be included (the Apocrypha, etc.). Luther and Calvin both had a few books they wanted to boot out. 😉
Not only do we not have the so-called original autographs, but even if we did, they would require translation – a process that involves a certain amount of presupposition and unavoidable judgment calls. Or, say the world had not changed, and we all still spoke the ancient languages and fully understood the ancient cultures, we would still have to wrestle with what the words of men, inspired or not, actually were intended to mean. You are likely aware of how drastically the meanings of words can change over the years. Peter suggests that the words of Paul, and others, were often distorted, even while he was yet alive, and my reading of John is that his definition of ‘the Word of God’ was Jesus himself.
Don’t get too excited. I haven’t ditched my bible, and don’t foresee doing so; but I certainly perceive it differently than I once did. I am well aware that people who present the issues involved in fully understanding the meaning of scripture are portrayed as godless heretics, but that is far from helpful or accurate. I do have sympathy with some of the writings of early church ‘fathers’ who viewed ‘the Word’ as meaning Jesus, and the worship of the writings themselves as bibliolatry; which would most likely earn me ‘heretic’ status with some today.
I have grappled with these issues for many decades, and will continue to do so, but find many of the arguments I once strongly defended no longer persuasive. I am far less concerned about having ‘orthodox’ positions than I once was; something that you at times seem to have sympathy with.
TS00,
Wow…I don’t think I’ve seen such skepticism in a Christian before. Based on what you said, HOW CAN YOU BE SO SURE THAT JESUS IS THE CHRIST? After all, the gospels could all be false? Fake? Phony? Maybe there was no such person as Saul renamed Paul?
Let me lay it out for you real quick.
The BIBLE is a JEWISH book.
The Law (Torah, meaning Genesis thru Deuteronomy), the Prophets, and the Psalms, and what the Jews call the TENACH. Jesus mentions this a number of times.
Those are found in Jewish Synagogues. Whether you have the NT writings or not, Jewish Synogogues have the FIRST HALF of the Bible.
Now, you mention the NT not being written yet. SO WHAT? What did the Bereans do when Paul told them about Jesus? They searched the SCRIPTURES daily to see if Paul was telling the truth or not. What SCRIPTURES DID THEY CONSULT? Those BEREANS had to be JEWISH for access to a Jewish Synagogue to research said scripture.
Time and time again, the words “In the mouth of two or three witnesses may every word be established” is mentioned in the bible, both the old and gospels and epistles.
We have Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John…they are WITNESSES.
When a NEW apostle was chosen in Acts to replace Judas, the RULES were that the one chosen HAD TO BE A WITNESS of Jesus from…
Acts 1:21-22
21 Therefore it is necessary to choose one of the men who have been with us the whole time the Lord Jesus was living among us, 22 beginning from John’s baptism to the time when Jesus was taken up from us. For one of these must become a witness with us of his resurrection.”
Why was that important? So that OUT OF THE MOUTH OF TWO OR THREE WITNESSES MAY EVERY WORD BE ESTABLISHED.
We have epistles from Peter, John, James.
Paul is the only outsider. And No One knows who wrote the book of Hebrews, etc.
But if you are looking at stuff like the GOSPEL OF MARY, or stuff like that, Mary was not an Apostle, so she wouldn’t count anyway.
Paul is considered an Apostle and he is acknowledged by Peter as one.
Don’t be so skeptical! Otherwise, you might just QUESTION if Jesus is really our savior.
But ya first need to find out if Paul’s writings are FALSE. How do you do that? What did the Bereans SEARCH ON A DAILY BASIS? The Scriptures…that is, the HEBREW Scriptures, the Tenach, the Law, the Prophets, and the Psalms, located in Jewish Synagogues. How do I know that they were Jewish? Because no Gentile was ever allowed in a Jewish Synagogue.
Ed Chapman
TS00,
One more thing…
You had said:
” and my reading of John is that his definition of ‘the Word of God’ was Jesus himself. ”
My response:
“The Word of God” is NOT A TITLE. This is why I intentionally used the word LOGOS.
Revelation 19:13
He is dressed in a robe dipped in blood, and his name is the Word of God.
I have NO PROBLEM whatsoever of identifying Jesus as the word of God. No one is disputing that.
What I am trying to get you to concentrate on, is the MEANING of the word LOGOS. I have a motive behind that.
You mentioned languages, etc.
You should have known, as a Christian, that the words on the Cross of Jesus was written in 3 different Languages.
1. Hebrew
2. Latin
3. Greek
Now, if you are a Catholic, #1 above would NOT say Hebrew, it would say, “Aramaic”. The Catholics HAD to say that in order to MAKE Peter the First Pope by them declaring that Peter is the one building God’s church. But that’s another story.
My point, Hebrew was the Jewish Language, which you know. Latin was the language for the ELITE philosophers, and Greek was the INTERNATIONAL language of the day, just like English is today.
Logos…what is it DEFINED as? It’s a GREEK word.
It is DEFINED as: SPOKEN WORD, INCLUDING THOUGHT.
The last two words are the MOST important of them all.
I’m sure that you know that we must give God an ACCOUNT of our life at the judgement?
What word do you suppose is used for the word ACCOUNT?
LOGOS. Why is that word important for the word ACCOUNT? Logos last two words in definition is INCLUDING THOUGHT.
The answer is…if what I say originates in MY MIND, it is logos. If what I say originated in YOUR mind, that is NOT logos.
If I say what originated in your mind, that would be RHEMA.
When someone quotes the words of God, they are RHEMA words, or SOMEONE ELSES words.
When God speaks his words, they are LOGOS words, his own words.
Jesus is God. Jesus speaks God’s words. It ain’t rhema, it’s Logos. His words. From Genesis to Revelation…The Word of God…Jesus!
That is why John, in Revelation states HIS NAME as the word of God…his NAME…NAME. It’s not a title…it’s his name. The Name of Jesus is the Word of God. His own words, not that of another!
And this reinforces why I do NOT believe in the Catholic Trinity of 3 people playing the role of ONE GOD.
Ed Chapman
Chapman posted this one:
Exercised by man in accessing God?????????????????????
I think we’ve been over this time and time and time again.
Accessing God after KNOWLEDGE of sin requires a SACRIFICE, and God showed them what that is by killing (shedding blood) of an animal.
Knowledge of sin separates man from God, and a sacrifice RESUMES access to God.
Why do you keep referring that man has NO ACCESS TO GOD unless God does the intervening? I don’t see ANY prevenient grace in play, and I don’t see any irresistible grace in play at all. Just man excersizing a simple task of sacrificing an animal.
———Here’s my Response———–
1. It is obvious from your statement above that you are in agreement of Man’s separation from God due to the knowledge of sin.
2. You also said in your statement above that a sacrifice of an animal by killing and the shedding of blood resumes man’s access to God.
Do you still deny that it was God who is in-charge of killing the animal and it was God who gave Adam and Eve that clothing made of that animal skin before they were expelled at the garden of Eden? ____
If it was not God who provide them that clothing, then who did that? Are you saying it was Adam and Eve themselves to gave themselves that clothing? – Where can you find that in the Bible? ______
Do still deny that Adam and Eve refuse to accept that clothing that was given to them by God? ____
Do you still deny that the freely acceptance of that clothing on the part of Adam and Eve was not a manifestation of the Faith that was given to them? ______ (Preveniet grace? or irresistible grace?)
Do you still deny that this provisions of God (the clothing made from the skin of animal) was not an expression of GRACE? _____
jtleosala,
To answer your questions:
1. You had said:
“Do you still deny that it was God who is in-charge of killing the animal and it was God who gave Adam and Eve that clothing made of that animal skin before they were expelled at the garden of Eden? ____”
My response:
In charge?
You concentrate on CLOTHING? I concentrate on the spiritual (covering SIN) and you concentrate on CARNAL (covering genitals)?
Let me REVERSE your question BACK TO YOU, and ask, WHO WAS “IN CHARGE” OF killing animals after that.
I can’t believe you would revert to such weirdness asking me if God was “IN CHARGE” of killing an animal.
NO, he was not IN CHARGE. He did that in order to SHOW Adam what to do henceforth.
Sin, kill an animal. Sin, kill another animal.
Was God in charge of killing all animals for sin? Or did he just do it ONCE, to show him how it’s done?
Ed Chapman
Ed,
I thought that you believe in the OT types of Christ as you expressed that in this blog site?…. How come that:
1. Do you still deny that the lamb that was slain was the source of that skin clothing that was given to Adam and Eve before they were expelled from the garden?. You said it was the blood and I don’t argue with that. It is not a valid basis to label anybody else as carnal and that it seems to appear that you are the only spiritual sinless being that exists on earth.
2. Do you still deny that when Christ went to the cross of Calvary, He was the lamb of God that John the Baptist is referring to. The Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world? Do you still deny that Christ was the fulfillment of the Lamb that was pre-slained in Genesis?
3. Do you still deny that it was God the Father who pre-determined for His only begotten Son to die on the cross. – whereby “God is in-charge”
4. Those animal sacrifices in the OT, of course man is the one who kills those sacrificial lamb and they are just shadows of the things that Christ is the end of all of those animal sacrifices.
jtleosala,
You had said:
“1. Do you still deny that the lamb that was slain was the source of that skin clothing that was given to Adam and Eve before they were expelled from the garden?. You said it was the blood and I don’t argue with that. It is not a valid basis to label anybody else as carnal and that it seems to appear that you are the only spiritual sinless being that exists on earth.”
My response:
I know what you are TRYING to do here, and you are trying to EQUATE THAT sacrifice with either prevenient grace, or irresistible grace, and that is NOT the story line here.
I do NOT deny the ORDER OF EVENTS.
When you mention the clothing, that is indeed the CARNAL part. The fact is, the sacrifice COVERED THEIR SHAME.
Shame…there is TWO SIDES OF THE USE OF THAT WORD. One is carnal, the other is spiritual.
Carnal = Genitals
Spiritual = Sin
Carnal = Animal Skin
Spiritual = Blood
You don’t seem to mention blood. You don’t mention shame. You mention clothing only. Hence, you are being carnal. When you mention clothing only, then you are mentioning genitals only. You are not mentioning blood that covered shame, you are mentioning clothing that covered body parts.
I see the Bible in TWO WAYS, whereas you see it ONE WAY. Your ONE WAY is ONLY carnal, your one way is only expository.
Spiritually, this is prophesy of Jesus. The Lamb of God.
That first one was NOT Jesus.
Ed Chapman
jtleosala,
You keep asking me if I STILL DENY. When did I first deny?
That first lamb did NOT SAVE. It only covered. The book of Hebrews tells us the difference between the blood of animals and the blood of Jesus. The blood of animals cannot take GUILT away. Only the blood of Christ can take GUILT away.
But I have no idea why you are trying to equate an animal sacrifice to prevenient or irresistible grace.
Man had to WORK a sacrifice to access God. God only showed how to do the first one, but man had to WORK a sacrifice from that point on!
WORK!
Ed Chapman
jtleosala,
You had said:
3. Do you still deny that it was God the Father who pre-determined for His only begotten Son to die on the cross. – whereby “God is in-charge”
My response:
Again, WHEN DID I EVER DENY THIS in the first place?
I have KEPT ON and kept on discussing PROPHESY. Time and time again, I use that word.
Did Peter try to defend Jesus when he was arrested? Was that the word of God, or the word of Satan?
Did Satan want Jesus to get to that cross?
Did Satan want Jesus to be born?
What did Satan do to prevent Jesus from getting to that cross?
What stories in the OT are LIKE THAT?
Satan tried to stop Moses from being born. Satan tried to stop Jesus from being born. TYPE and SHADOW.
Yes, God, the Father…which I identify as Jesus, did indeed predetermine to get himself to that cross. But Satan, did what he could to PREVENT it from ever happening, but God INTERVENED to stop Satan from stopping him from getting to that cross.
God was IN CHARGE of PROPHECY COMING TRUE of JESUS, not in charge of INDIVIDUALS being saved.
God was in charge of MAKING A WAY for those who, BY FREE WILL, want it. But God wills that everyone be saved, not just a CHOSEN FEW.
Ed Chapman
Chapman posted this one:
“Yes, God, the Father…which I identify as Jesus, did indeed predetermine to get himself to that cross. But Satan, did what he could to PREVENT it from ever happening, but God INTERVENED to stop Satan from stopping him from getting to that cross.”
———Here’s My Response———-
God the Father is also Jesus Christ – just One person ?… you might base this claim of yours in the statement of Jesus Christ when He said: “I and the father is one” – My understanding of that statement is that they are One in Purpose concerning the accomplishment of the Will of God. It never teaches about your claim for it contradicts with the other verses all through out the bible teaching us about the separateness of the three (God the Father is not Jesus. Jesus was not the Father. God the Holy Spirit is not Jesus nor the Father)n- these three are all in One purpose in accomplishing God’s will. They don’t contradict with each other. They have definite roles to accomplish…
jtleosala,
You had said:
“God the Father is also Jesus Christ – just One person ?… you might base this claim of yours in the statement of Jesus Christ when He said: “I and the father is one” – My understanding of that statement is that they are One in Purpose…”
My response:
Have you ever researched in that CONCORDANCE of yours what the DEFINITION of that word, “ONE” is?
There is two uses of the word ONE in the NT, two different Greek Words.
What you said about “ONE IN PURPOSE” is the same exact thing that the Jehovah’s Witnesses say, in order to discredit that Jesus is God.
When Jesus said that, the Pharisees wanted to stone him, right? The very next verse states:
“31 Again his Jewish opponents picked up stones to stone him”
According to the Bible, what was against the law that would require STONING?
Saying that you are ONE IN PURPOSE with the Father is NOT a stonable offense.
Saying that “I and the Father are ONE” is a stonable offense, because Jesus is claiming to be God, and the Jews there interpret that as BLASPHEMY, as verse 33 states:
33 “We are not stoning you for any good work,” they replied, “but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God.”
ONE, DEFINED IN THAT VERSE is “A Numeral”.
A Numeral, jt. A Numeral. ONE, as a NUMERAL is defined as “A SINGLE UNIT”.
The Jews believe in ONLY ONE GOD, and when Jesus said, I and the Father are ONE (a single unit), that certainly did not mean IN PURPOSE. It meant exactly how the Jews interpreted it themselves.
Ed Chapman
jtleosala,
You had said:
” It never teaches about your claim for it contradicts with the other verses all through out the bible teaching us about the separateness of the three (God the Father is not Jesus. Jesus was not the Father. God the Holy Spirit is not Jesus nor the Father)n- these three are all in One purpose in accomplishing God’s will. They don’t contradict with each other. They have definite roles to accomplish…”
I disagree with you.
I have already been over this topic already.
Several times.
We are CREATED in the image and likeness of God.
if we have a body, so does God. If God is a spirit, so are we. If God “HAS” a soul, so do we.
God, the Father=SPIRIT
God, the Son=BODY
God, the Holy Spirit=the MIND OF CHRIST
That, is trinity. There is no such thing as three people playing the role of ONE GOD.
In the topic of speaking in tongues, Paul speaks about this when he states that OUR OWN SPIRIT PRAYS, but if we DON’T UNDERSTAND (using our mind), what our spirit is SPEAKING, then we must shut up, otherwise, we are just a bunch of symbols clanging.
That tells you that we have TWO intellects in us. Two, jt. One is our spirit, the other is our mind, which is the transliteration of the word soul.
Soul, from the Greek is PSUCKE, and transliterated to Latin is PSYCHE, and that is our mind, in simple English. Our spirit is a separate intellect in us.
Jesus is the ONLY ONE who could say that the FATHER WAS “IN”, IN IN IN IN IN HIM.
How is that? The Father in TWO PLACES AT THE SAME TIME! In heaven, and IN Jesus.
It was Jesus that was in the Garden with Adam and Eve. It was Jesus that Moses saw. It was Jesus that said of himself:
John 3:13
And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.
Jesus is saying in that one verse that he’s been here BEFORE HE WAS BORN “in the flesh OF MAN”
Ed Chapman
In my previous, JT, I had said,
“John 3:13
And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.
Jesus is saying in that one verse that he’s been here BEFORE HE WAS BORN “in the flesh OF MAN”
I meant to say:
John 3:13
And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.
Jesus is saying in that one verse that he’s been here BEFORE HE WAS BORN “from Mary”.
Ed Chapman
Hey Ed, Was God throwing His voice when He was getting baptized, or that time when Jesus prayed, and a voice came from heaven in response to Him. In fact, at those moments was it just the body of God talking to the spirit of God when Jesus prayed to the Father? Is that like when my body grumbles at me? 😁
Communication between persons in God proves plurality of persons in the God. Elohim (a plural word) is “one”.
Mark 1:11 NKJV — Then a voice came from heaven, “You are My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.”
John 12:28 NKJV — “Father, glorify Your name.” Then a voice came from heaven, saying, “I have both glorified it and will glorify it again.”
Deuteronomy 6:4 NKJV — “Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God [Elohim], the LORD is one!
Brian,
This could be a comedy act of it wasn’t true. Imagine, if you will, the location of God’s throne. How many miles away is it? And yet God can talk to Abraham and Moses from that location? What’s the speed of sound?
Let me ask you something… did Jesus say that the Father was “IN” him?
If Jesus said that the Father was IN him, that’s pretty far fetched in our measly carnal minds, too, since many times Jesus also said, MY FATHER WHICH IS IN HEAVEN.
WELL WAIT A MINUTE. Which is it? Is the Father IN you, or in heaven?
The answer, obviously, is both.
But, the question now is, why is the Father IN him, as well as being IN heaven? Two places at the same time.
Paul tells us that we, as a spirit, live in a body. We are our spirit. But we have no clue about our own spirit. Our spirit prays, but we have no clue what it says. Our mind has no comprehension. But JESUS knows his spirit. His spirit is the father, and the body of the Father is Jesus. Hence, the term, Temple of God that Jesus said he would rebuild in 3 days.
I can’t, I good conscience, believe in three people playing .God. I can only believe in one person playing God.
I’m glad you referenced Due 6:4. Why? Because that is referenced in the Gospels. So, what I need you to do is to now reword that as the Greek reads it. You won’t find YHVH or ELOHIM. There is only one Lord. Not two Lords. And if there is only one LORD, and Jesus is Lord, then did the Father STEP DOWN? OR, is the Father still on the throne?
I can expound further, but I’d be talking a long time, cuz I’ve studied all this stuff out years ago, while studying why the Jehovah’s witnesses do not believe Jesus is God. I not only believe that Jesus is God, I believe that he is the only God.
Ed Chapman
And Ed, did you notice that you did not answer my questions. You sidestepped by claiming God is in Christ and and heaven, but did not address the communication that was going on between the Father and the Son. Let me ask you the questions again and see if you will directly deal with this issue of communication requiring two different thinking parties – thanks.
Was God throwing His voice when He was getting baptized, or that time when Jesus prayed, and a voice came from heaven in response to Him. In fact, at those moments was it just the body of God talking to the spirit of God when Jesus prayed to the Father? Is that like when my body grumbles at me?
I answered your question rhetorically. Your question about throwing the voice is a rhetorical question. That question is raised by the JW’s when we claim that Jesus is God. Did God speak to Moses from heaven? Yes. Was the Father IN Jesus? Yes.
There is no such thing as God throwing his voice. However, God, the Father was IN two places at the same time. God, the Father was still in heaven.
But what gets missed is that God the Father was also in Jesus.
So the question of throwing a voice is rhetorical.
Ed Chapman
Again Ed, you sidestepped the real issue in my question. Was God talking to Himself and answering back to Himself in those historical instances I listed? When Jesus said, “Not my will, but yours…”, was He talking to Himself and showing that God is doubleminded in one person?
Brian
What do you think when I state that God is one person?
I did not side step anything.
Ed Chapman
Brian,
Not my will, as a man. Soul. Jesus is both man and God.
The body is the man portion.
Ed Chapman
Last time, Ed… if you won’t answer, I’ll just let it drop. Was God talking to Himself and answering back to Himself in those historical instances I listed?
Brian,
I did answer. What did I say? I said that only one person is one God, didn’t I?
What’s the logical answer?
I can’t believe that you need me to explicitly say it.
Yes. Jesus was talking to himself! There!
When Phillip asks Jesus to show them the Father, and that will be sufficient, what did Jesus reply?
And since you believe in 3 people playing God, let me ask you a question.
If the Father is in heaven, and the Holy Spirit is a separate person, the Holy Spirit over shadows Mary, then how can you conclude that the Father is the Father of Jesus? Seems to me, since you believe in 3 people being God, then the rightful father of Jesus is the Holy Spirit, right?
Second, do the Jews already know of a Holy Spirit? Yes, they do. Do they call that Holy Spirit the second person of God?
Did you not hear me when I discussed Paul in his description in speaking in tongues? You have 2 intellects in your one body that is separate and distinct. And Both of those are you. So why is it so hard to understand Jesus talking to himself, using the example of speaking in tongues, that you are a spirit, which prays (talks), but YOU, the other intellect doesn’t know what it’s even talking about.
FATHER=SPIRIT JOHN 4:24
SON=BODY OF CHRIST
1 Thessalonians 5:23 and James 2:26
You are a trinity. Spirit and soul and body. Two of those are separate intellects. Both talk.
Ed Chapman
Thank you Ed for confirming the only logical conclusion to support your position, is that God was talking to Himself in those settings. I have answers for each of your questions but I’m thinking you probably have heard them before and reject them, since you are willing to deny the normal interpretation that prayer is between two persons of the Godhead and God the Father was speaking to God the Son… not just His spirit talking to His body. Thx for the conversation.
With all due respect, Brian, yes, I’ve heard your answers before. This is not a new topic for me. What I find interesting is that it is always assumed by those who believe in the, and I must emphasize, the CATHOLIC interpretation of the doctrine of the trinity, that three word GODHEAD somehow concludes more than one person playing one God.
I have never denied the Father. I have never denied the Son. I have never denied the Holy Spirit. I have never denied the deity of Jesus.
I have never denied that the Father is God. I have never denied that Jesus is God. I have never denied that the Holy Spirit is God.
I just believe that all of those is the same person.
Now, knowing that reformers categorize Christians in about 3 different groups, i.e., Armenian, or Palagian, or semi Palagian…
Which one am I in those only available categories?
Ed Chapman
Brian,
My other question would be…
How did you learn of the Catholic doctrine of the trinity?
Was it before someone told you about it, or independent study without preconceived knowledge?
Status Quo? Don’t rock the boat?
Ed Chapman
Ed,I never mentioned the word Trinity. There may be more than three persons communicating with each other in the Godhead. I do know that my testimony of my Christian baptism was in three persons with one name/nature.
The issue is that God was fully in Christ (not just the funny idea of a “body” of God) and God was fully in heaven saying to Christ – “You are my Son”. And God was fully in the HS that descended on Christ in a form of a dove. That’s what happened.
That’s what I believe. You are welcome to your thoughts. You answer not to me.
Brian,
You didn’t mention the word trinity. Did you make that statement in order to tell me that you don’t believe in the trinity?
Were we not discussing the trinity?
I’m confused now when you state that you never mentioned the trinity.
I know that you didn’t. But that is what you believe in, right?
Ed Chapman
You may need to read what I wrote again, Ed. I do believe the Scripture clearly teaches a plurality in unity in the Godhead. I would not use the word Trinity, for that word implies the Scripture teaches there are *only* three. There may be more, and as I said, but my baptism clearly testifies to three persons in one name.
And Christ’s baptism had the involvement of three persons of the Godhead interacting with each other. You want it to be God talking to Himself but it appeared to others as the communication of two separate persons. I take it as two separate persons as it clearly appears to be in His Word.
That’s my final comment because you asked the question again. But I have no further comments for you and will not answer any further questions on this, for I would just be repeating again. Blessings.
Interesting… more than 3? Never heard that before.
Just think of this, as my last on the subject. You die, and meet Jesus. You are so excited on meeting the Father. You ask Jesus for an introduction. Then Jesus asks you if you can recite what he told Phillip.
But, your wish is my command. Mums the word from this point forward.
Ed Chapman
Ed Chapman
Brian,
Please look at the gospel reference to Deuteronomy 6:4.
You will notice that the words YHVH and ELOHIM IS NOT there.
What’s the ongoing argument about the word LORD in the Hebrew scripture?
Many accuse the KJV folks, or the Catholics for deleting YHVH, replacing it with LORD. And the same argument for ELOHIM as well.
But that argument does not hold water, when we see how it is written in the Greek. In the Greek, the Greek word used for both ELOHIM and YHVH is the Greek word for LORD. So again, reword Deu 6:4 just as the gospel has it referenced.
Then you should be able to see why we ( you included) uses the word LORD instead of YHVH or ELOHIM.
One Lord. Jesus is Lord. If the Father is Lord, that would be two Lords, not one Lord.
Ed Chapman
Chapman posted this one:
“That first lamb did NOT SAVE. It only covered. The book of Hebrews tells us the difference between the blood of animals and the blood of Jesus. The blood of animals cannot take GUILT away. Only the blood of Christ can take GUILT away.”
“But I have no idea why you are trying to equate an animal sacrifice to prevenient or irresistible grace.”
“Man had to WORK a sacrifice to access God. God only showed how to do the first one, but man had to WORK a sacrifice from that point on!”
“WORK!”
“Ed Chapman”
———Here’s My Response———-
The shadow of those types of Christ cant really save. It only covers sin. I agree… It is the real Jesus Christ that saves by the time He shed His blood at the cross of Calvary. But those people there in the OT were looking forward to Christ even though they have no knowledge yet of this prophecy like Adam and Eve. Their action of receiving those clothes of animal skin were an expression of their faith and hope that is in Christ.
You said to me that it was the Mom and Dad of Cain and Abel who taught them how to offer sacrifice of thanksgiving to God — and I do agree with that. This would mean that their Mom and Dad were really hoping for that God’s wrath for them shall be appeased
The shadow (sacrifice animal) is already an expression of God’s grace that has to be fulfilled by Christ on the cross. – Yet you still deny this as the grace of God? Is Christ not an expression of God’s Grace for the sinners like you?
You said : “Chapman” still needs to WORK a sacrifice? What sacrifice?
You mean to say Christ’s finished work at the cross is not enough for you?
jt, I agree with most things you said here. However, still, you are trying to equate prevenient or irresistible grace to the equation, and I totally disagree.
Grace is a different subject matter.
When Jesus died on the cross, no one got grace from that act alone.
Grace is a gift, given to the humble, not given to the proud.
Just because they all believed in a coming messiah, that does not qualify grace.
They must believe that Jesus is that messiah.
Then they get grace. Until that time, no one got grace.
The word righteousness is a different topic as well.
Righteousness is associated with faith. Faith is a prerequisite grace.
But grace could not be given to anyone until Jesus died on that cross, TAKING YOUR PLACE.
The faith is your responsibility.
So, we have 3 words at play.
Righteousness, faith, grace.
Grace and sacrifice are total opposite.
If grace was given to Adam, then no animal skin was even necessary.
Grace comes after the sacrifice, not before the sacrifice.
Repeat, grace comes after the sacrifice, not before.
Jesus takes our punishment first. Then we are aquitted of our crime.
That aquittal is that grace. But Jesus had to die first.
No one, not even Abraham, got grace until Jesus died.
Righteousness… That’s a totally different topic to have.
Yes, I deny prevenient and irresistible grace.
Ed Chapman
jtleosala,
Your next question:
2: Do still deny that Adam and Eve refuse to accept that clothing that was given to them by God? ____
My response:
Do I still deny? When did I deny the first time? Why are you still discussing clothing? Are we at a fashion show?
God was showing Adam and Eve that NOTHING CAN COVER YOUR SHAME, except the blood of an animal.
You keep talking carnal. Oh, that’s right…it’s the wood, huh?
Ed Chapman
jtleosala,
Your #3
Do you still deny that the freely acceptance of that clothing on the part of Adam and Eve was not a manifestation of the Faith that was given to them? ______ (Preveniet grace? or irresistible grace?)
How are you equating clothing, or COVERING SIN as a prevenient or irresistible grace?
Are you saying that WE ARE ALL UNDER GRACE because we wear clothes?
Ed Chapman
jtleosala,
You had said:
“Do you still deny that this provisions of God (the clothing made from the skin of animal) was not an expression of GRACE? _____”
YES, I do indeed deny that the provisions that God gave as any kind of grace. All it did was TEMPORARILY COVER SIN…until the next sin, then another animal sacrifice was required, and that sacrifice was DONE BY MAN, not God.
Ed Chapman
Chapman posted this one:
“YES, I do indeed deny that the provisions that God gave as any kind of grace. All it did was TEMPORARILY COVER SIN…until the next sin, then another animal sacrifice was required, and that sacrifice was DONE BY MAN, not God.”
Ed Chapman
———-Here’s My Response———–
Even if it is just temporary, yet it did work for Israel as a means for the cleansing of their sins—- and it was an expression of the shadow of grace which is to come. It was God who initiated for them to offer animal sacrifices. Christ was the final Lamb that was slain. Why do you still insist today that you still need to work a sacrifice? I have no idea of what other kind of sacrifice you are talking about in our days for the atonement of your sins.
Again, grace does not come until after the sacrifice.
Not before.
And it only comes to those who believe that Jesus died for their sin.
It does not come just because you believe in a coming messiah. It does not come just because Jesus died on the cross. It only comes to those who believe that Jesus is the messiah that took your punishment.
It does not matter that God took the initiative to kill the lamb of God.
You must first believe that Jesus took your sins upon himself.
That belief is on you, not God.
I say again, grace comes after the sacrifice, not before.
In a courtroom, we are found guilty.
Then we are sentenced.
After sentencing, then Jesus states, “I’ve already paid his price, he’s free”
See? Sacrifice before Grace.
Ed Chapman
You ask why I insist? Jesus is the last sacrifice that we ever need.
We had to WORK, sacrificing Jesus.
Did you sacrifice Jesus? Yes. You killed Jesus. His blood is on your hands. You gave Jesus your sins, didn’t you? If you gave him your sins, then Jesus was punished for what you did. You didn’t get grace until you gave Jesus your sins.
You want to say that God takes people’s sins away before the sacrifice, calling that prevenient or irresistible grace.
The punishment of Jesus comes before grace. You gotta first give your sins to the lamb of God before you get grace.
I gotta go to work.
Ed Chapman
jtleosala,
The ONLY thing that I will admit to, jt, is that the FIRST SACRIFICE that God did FOR Adam and EVE is A PROPHESY OF JESUS AS THE LAMB OF GOD SACRIFICED ON THE CROSS.
That’s all that I will admit. But I’m sure that you see that as a piece of wood that I am carving, huh?
Ed Chapman
Chapman posted this one:
“All of the words in the bible are the words of Jesus, hence, the word, LOGOS. It’s not his fault that man twists his words.”
——–Here’s my Response——-
I disagree with your statement above. Not all of the words in the translation of the bible that we are using now were not all the words of Jesus Christ. Why?,
1. The original manuscripts does not have in its content the following: Chapters, headings, numbering or verses, pages, bible helps, concordance, etc. – Are you saying those are the words of Jesus?
2. Some of the last verses in the last Chapter of the book of the gospel of Mark-they were just added by the translators even if they were not found in the original Greek.
I’m sure the bible that you are using now is not the original Hebrew and Greek. Are you a linguist who speaks Hebrew and Greek? The original manuscripts are in the safe keeping of the British museums as artifacts and I’m sure they won’t let you get those documents.
For me, I still prefer the translation of the Bible. What will i have to do with the Original when I don’t understand them?. We only refer to the original Language of the bible for things that are confusing and cannot well understood especially when we study doctrines. There is no perfect translation of the Bible. Why?
-Because each languages of the world have its own characteristics such as: Grammar rules, syntax, Phonology, characters in their alphabet-thus it would be too difficult to synchronize Hebrew and Greek to the rest of the languages of the world.
-Because each language of the world emerges from their own culture. In doing translation, translators give attention to the culture of both source language and the target language that needs the bible to be translated.
-Doing translation of the bible is a very difficult task. We owe much to the efforts of those translators for if not for them we will not understand the bible as non-Hebrew and non-Greek speaking people.
jtleosala,
Well of course YOU would disagree with me. Why wouldn’t you?
I’ve never identified BOOK, CHAPTER, VERSE or a concordance as PART of the Bible. How did you get that from my words?
The verses that you say were ADDED…that is STILL up for debate. But how does that change what is written in the Tenach, for which the Bereans searched?
Furthermore, I TRUST THE TRANSLATORS, WHO ARE LINGUISTS. We all know that what the Jews have are written in Hebrew, with the exception of Daniel, and I think something else, that was Aramaic. We do know that Greek was the Language of the Day, and that the Gospels were written in Greek.
But, like I said, I trust the translators. You, who boast about the Sovereignty of God, should trust that God would not leave us with BOGUS New Test Scripture, right?
Ed Chapman
Chapman posted this one:
“One Lord. Jesus is Lord. If the Father is Lord, that would be two Lords, not one Lord.”
———-Here’s My Response———–
Just an illustration to explain the doctrine of Trinity: Water as a single element … with 3 properties …
Water – 1. solid form/ice 2. gas form when heated 3. liquid form = Same One element Water
One God – 1. Father 2. Son 3. Holy Spirit = Same One God
Conclusion : There is only One (1) God manifesting in 3 distinct Personalities, i.e.: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit
Chapman posted this one:
“Did you sacrifice Jesus? Yes. You killed Jesus. His blood is on your hands. You gave Jesus your sins, didn’t you? If you gave him your sins, then Jesus was punished for what you did. You didn’t get grace until you gave Jesus your sins.”
———Here’s My Response———-
Where in the Bible it says that I give my sins, your sins to Jesus?
It was Jesus who took away my sins by willingly offering His life and to shed His blood for a sinner like me.
Grace is already available and it was given by God to me even if I am not deserving to receive that grace. He once uttered while hanging on the cross: “It is finished”
It was God who made me alive by the time that I received (in actual) that grace of Salvation that was already reserved for me.
Jesus was already predetermined to die before the foundation of the world according to I Peter 1:20 “Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world but was manifested in these last times for you.”
Sinners never asked Jesus Christ to give His life for them. Have you done that when you were still inside your mother’s womb?
Adam and Eve after they fell to sin, they never asked God to search for them or even to restore them. It was God who first initiated to search for them in the garden.
Jesus said : You did not chose Me but I choose you. (God’s act of choosing, picking up, selecting is a manifestation of Grace)
The apostle John said: “We love because He first loved us” (It. is God who first loved us. We only learn to love Him because of His Love He bestowed in our hearts.
Jesus said: “I came to save the lost”. (It is God who is ahead in search for the lost sinners)
jt,
1 John 1:9
We must confess our sins. Then we are forgiven.
Isn’t that what 1 John 1:9 states?
Ed Chapman
jt,
In order to accomplish 1 John 1:9, in confessing, ya gotta know what you sinned, right?
In addition, I’ve heard the trinity water and egg example. Those are terrible examples.
I like to use the FIRE example.
What is a fire? Anyone whose taken a firefighting class can answer this.
HEAT
FUEL
OCYGEN
Remove just one of those elements, it’s no longer a fire.
Remove your spirit from your body, you are not living.
Whoever invented the water and vapor and ice example, sure was not thinking spirit, soul, and body.
Ed Chapman
Ed, Confessing is very much different in meaning from giving. I have no problem with I John 1:9
You said : “The punishment of Jesus comes before grace. You gotta first give your sins to the lamb of God before you get grace.”
I disagree with your statement : “you gotta first give your sins to the Lamb of God before you get grace” = (Grace is given to undeserving sinners without any conditions at all. Why do you put your own condition for that?)
Water is just an example used to explain the trinity, even the one that you suggested – the fire, we do not know who is the original author for that.
Chapman posted this one:
“If the Father is in heaven, and the Holy Spirit is a separate person, the Holy Spirit over shadows Mary, then how can you conclude that the Father is the Father of Jesus? Seems to me, since you believe in 3 people being God, then the rightful father of Jesus is the Holy Spirit, right?”
——–Here’s My Response——–
Jesus Christ didn’t address the Holy Spirit as His Father. So… Chapman in His claim for the Holy Spirit as the father of Jesus is just personally invented by himself. It is not accepted by Jesus as well as God the father for even God the Father never addresses the Holy Spirit as father.
Regarding the doctrine of incarnation:
God the Father (not Jesus Christ) sending His only begotten Son as Fully God and fully human to the world
The Holy Spirit’s role here has been shown to us “overshadow” and I think Chapman’s take on this word as a sexual intercourse with Mary because he said The Holy Spirit was the Father of Jesus. — I can’t believe this…..
“Prevenient Grace” is NOT WORKING to Sinners who are dead in their sins: They must be regenerated (Made alive spiritually) first so that when they are made alive that’s the time they can already manage to engage with God.
Let me identify some of those examples of “Prevenient Grace”
1. The role that was done by John the Baptist in heralding Jesus by testifying about the Light, and preparing the way for Jesus – yet Sinners did not recognize Jesus – John 1: 9-10
John 1:9-10 That was the true Light, which lightest every man that cometh into the world. He was in the world, and the world was made by Him, and the world knew Him not.
2. Through the General Revelation of God of Himself over His Creation of Nature. There are still people who refuse to acknowledge Him as God. They changed the truth of God into a lie. Romans 1:25-26
Romans 1:25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie and worshiped and served the creature more than the Creator. For this cause God gave them up into vile affections….”
3. The “tares” that were also sown in the same field (nourishing the same minerals from the ground) with the “wheat”, yet they remained as “tares” – never influenced by the presence of the “wheat” – Matt 13:30
Matt. 13:30 Let both grow together until the harvest, and in the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather ye together first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them, but gather the wheat into My barn.
4. The feeding of the multitudes. They become interested only for the material food but not with Spiritual things. Jesus even said to them Why are you following Me. Is it because you have eaten of the bread?
It’s just like the “prosperity gospel” of Joel Osteen.
John 6:26 “…. Verily, verily I say unto you, ye seek Me not because ye saw the miracles, but because ye did eat of the loaves, and were filled.
jtl writes, “It’s just like the “prosperity gospel” of Joel Osteen. ”
In defense of Osteen, he does not preach to unbelievers – he allows them to listen in as he preaches to believers. We know this because he always starts a service with people holding up their Bible and declaring their submission to God and all the Bible says. So, he is not preaching to anybody who isn’t being truthful. To those to whom he preaches, he is really non-committal – accept your circumstances as being contrived by God for your good. If you get that promotion or not, rejoice in it. Osteen is an encourager and I think he does it well. The rare times I have caught a sermon, I have found it encouraging to know that God always has my back in good times and bad. God has been very good to me, and Osteen reinforces that conclusion for me.