Free-will doctrine�what does it do? It magnifies man into God; it declares God's purposes a nullity, since they cannot be carried out unless men are willing. It makes God's will a waiting servant to the will of man, and the whole covenant of grace dependent upon human action. Denying election on the ground of injustice, it holds God to be a debtor to sinners, so that if he gives grace to one he is bound to do so to all. It teaches that the blood of Christ was shed equally for all men and since some are lost, this doctrine ascribes the difference to man's own will, thus making the atonement itself a powerless thing until the will of man gives it efficacy...http://www.spurgeon.org/sermons/0502.htm
"Well Holder I'd have to read all of Carsons article to get an understanding of what he means exactly by the different "senses" he refers to. But from the brief part you've posted I dont have too much of a problem with what he says."
Great so you agree that God only intended for Jesus to die in order effectively save a specific people. Now we are getting somewhere.
" I can only understand yr beliefs if u succinctly state them, something you so far have been unwilling to do."
This coming from the one who still can't say why John 3:16 must refer to "every single person".
" Ive tried to explain my position, its time for you to do the same."
Telling me you disagree with me and agree with "experts" is not explaining your position. I agree with all of the doctrines of grace.
Hi sister Jude! I see that the Lord Jesus is graciously bestowing His divine love of the Word. May the Lord bless you bountifully sister!
Love the verses you posted. Especially verses 3:18-19 showing the same word cosmos is denoted of a whole world. In fact the same word is used constantly to show all the known land. Even in the first chapter of John it shows that the cosmos was made by Christ. So this debate is really here to stroke a man's ego more than anything else.
Donna! Hi and how are you my beautiful sister in Christ? I love reading your topics when I come to this site, sis. Awesome zeal for the Lord that you give everyone in this forum a piece of reflection on the wonders of God.
Before I address your two questions I want to make a statement regarding this comment. It is nothing worth dwelling over to be sure, but for me, I just want to make certain.
You said: I agree God is almighty enough to save the whole world, but Christ Jesus says he did not he died for those the father gave him.
I agree with the first part but Jesus saying that he did not die for the ones that the Father didn't give Him? I'm not sure what that meant, but Jesus firmly said he was given for the World. He even confirms this in the later verses. He was given to the world although not all the world would accept Him. That is why Jesus makes it a point to say that whoever believes in Him will live and whoever doesn't is condemned.
Now, did i choose to be born? No. Did I pick the time and date where I was born? No.
But do I choose Christ? Yes. That is the basic answer that I can give based on my understanding. Scripture clearly shows that people are chosen and then they choose. It is a mutual act. True, there are issues that are way to hard for us to comprehend with God on the issue, but in essence, we only know that we are in His will. Does that mean that we follow it to the T? No. As far as we know and see, we think we are but only God knows. After all, He says that ALL THINGS work for the good. There is no Hebrew word for coincidence in Scripture. But does that mean that we are saved as soon as we receive Christ upon our accepting Him? Scripture says yes. Yet Scripture also says that many that believe on Him will face Him one day and be told to depart from Him no matter what they did in His name.
So what is the outcome then? People can receive the gift and be deceived into receiving it. This is the bigger issue. We are to work out our own salvation with fear and trembling. Why do you think this is so? To make sure we are in the faith? Peter says something like it in his epistles as well as Paul. Even the letters in the NT show that people were not always doing the will of God by the rebukes that the apostles gave in them. Does that mean that they weren't truly saved? No. It means that the Lord has sanctified us through Christ, whil also giving us room to grow in Him. Whether we will truly endure in the faith of our Lord Jesus is truly something that our God and King will finally tell us all on the Last Day. All we are to do now is to set our eyes on Christ and our walking in Him by showing others the same amount of love He gave us unconditionally.
As for the rest of the debate brothers, I honestly didn't read it, nor do I want to. The reason is that we tend to get caught up in the opinions that are popularized by men who were picky over one verse more than the ones that accompany it. And what is worse is that we, in Christ, tend to try to demean or belittle the one who has a view that matches another label that doesn't fit ours. Brothers and sisters, that is the very essence of heresy. And i use the word in its most biblical sense. Heresy is a denominational viewpoint that causes division and separates us from one another in Christ. This is what Paul spoke of when he rebuked the Corinthians in his first epistle. He accused them of having cliques among themselves (1 Cor. 11:19) which he showed in the first part of the letter when he showed that they chose different speakers and separated themselves from the ones who didn't like their expressions.
Why not read the whole context and then make discussions on them by giving each other honor and not quarrel? Where is the humble in any of this stuff? I've seen some passive aggressive insults here that mock Christ more than anything else. Cultic? Why not research the definition itself and consider that all regions (including Christianity) fit under the cult? Or better yet, why not research the most common practices that all these "cults" share with your "true" faith and wonder why they are so similar and never bothered to be researched?
Anyways, last post for me. I hope and pray that the light, mercy and love that the Lord Jesus has shown us all is bountifully emulated upon one and all who call on His name (or not) to show that we are His disciples.
May the peace of Christ be manifest in and upon you all my brothers and sisters.
Just for fun, I wondered if you might be Sicilian? You look like you coulda come straight outta one of our own family photos. In fact, you are a near ringer for one of my cousins.
Brother, let me say that I get what you are trying to put across. However, as I read line by line, there are many things that jumped out at me. You make lots of blunders in your reasoning.
I am not going to highlight them all because if I do, it will give the appearance that I am trying to make you look stupid or to start some kind of debate with you, personally.
Since you really only bring one scripture to bear in your comments, I have chosen to highlight that part only. It says something much different then what you claim it says.
1 Cor. 11:19 For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you. "
NOTICE: THERE MUST BE HERESIES AMONG YOU!! Why? Why does God sovereignly impose heresy into his own churches? The answer is right there in the verse. So, that they which ARE APPROVED may be MANIFEST among you. In others words, you will know those whom I have approved (the wheat) from those whose doctrine I do not approve (the tares)
He had heard that there were divisions among them and the reason why he knew this to be true was in part because THERE MUST BE.
I pointed this out concerning this whole thread yesterday using the parable of the wheat and the tare. You have just provided additional biblical support for what I said, even though that wasn't your intention.
I want to address some additional false teaching that was proffered here by Teach_ib. In her attempt to "add context" what she does is intentionally misread and add to the actual text. Why?? because she needs to do that to make her case for her false teaching.
Let's paste the passage first.
THERE was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews:
The same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him.
Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.
Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?
Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.
The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.
Now, let's paste Teach's quote: "So Nicodemus came to Jesus on his own because he wanted to know more...then Jesus took the time to explain to him what it took to be born again...physical birth is not our choice but spiritual birth requires an understanding of the need, the sacrifice, and how to accept the free gift of salvation. "
NOTICE: She says Nicodemus came to Jesus on his own. We do not know if he was on his own or not, the passage merely says that he came by night. We also have no idea what might have led him to come because the passage doesn't tell us that specifically. I personally think the answer is found in a passage like Matt 16:17. Scripture interprets scripture.
She then states he came because "he wanted to know more". Really? How does she know this? What the passage tells us is the Nicodemus came making a declaration not asking questions.
So her conclusion is just patently false.
She says Jesus took the time to explain to him what it took to be born again. Close, but no cigar. Again, not really what the passage says. The passage says that Jesus told him "Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God."
She concludes her argument by stating "but spiritual birth requires an understanding of the need, the sacrifice, and how to accept the free gift of salvation. " What? Really? Look at the passage in question. Where does Jesus say that? What he says is "Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again. The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.
A man must be born of water (natural birth) and of the Spirit (spiritual birth) or he cannot enter the kingdom of God. Do not marvel that I tell you these things. Ye must be BORN again. You can not tell which way the wind blows despite the fact that you can hear it blowing. This is the way the Spirit works in REBIRTH. You can not tell where it came from but the evidence is there that it happened.
YeshuaReigns calls Jesus comparison "inane" (Silly; stupid; not significant, vacuous - empty - senseless - blank - foolish - vacant)
Yet despite YR's opinion, this comparison is deliberately used for a reason. You had nothing to do with your natural birth. Likewise, you have nothing to do with your spiritual birth.
These folks never make any apologies for their mishandling of scripture. They just continue to operate from humanistic presuppositions and impose their views on the text.
Now, if Teach wants to go further down in the passage to try to make her case, then let her do that but she cannot come anywhere close to making her case based on the passage in question. Nor, does her case harmonize with the first portion of the passage which I have now shown.
" I'm not sure what that meant, but Jesus firmly said he was given for the World. He even confirms this in the later verses. He was given to the world although not all the world would accept Him."
Is this not more in line with the reformed belief? The command to repent and believe goes out to all. Jesus would have saved all had all believed. However, no one would believe except those He opened the hearts of. His death was for all in the sense that it had the power to save all if all believed. It's intent however was to effectively same some.
"Especially verses 3:18-19 showing the same word cosmos is denoted of a whole world."
The many blunders you saw was based on a word that is only used 10 times in the new testament with the exception of the 10th one which is ended differently.
That word, in essence is used as SECT for five times within the Scriptures (Acts 5:17; 26:5; 28:22) and the other 5 times as the actual Greek word (hairesis) translated as such. That word was translated as such within the 13th century due to translational bias. It was left as the same word to make a meaning vague. The word baptism is also a perfect example of this because the Catholics were sprinkling instead of immersing people so the Greek word of baptison was left as baptism. The Greek word for hairesis means a selective choice, or school of thought. The Hebrews had many SECTS/HAIRESIS within their faith of God. And when Christianity came along it too was considered as one faith. When Paul was using this example in Corinth he was rebuking the believers in Christ who were abusing the basic principles that he laid out to them for the two years he was there.
The fact that those SCHISMS were existing within the gathering was plainly evident by the way that that Paul shows it in the first chapter and reiterates it in the 11th when he is telling them that they are not paying attention to the other believers who did not eat by taking the bread for themselves and the getting drunk upon the cup of the Lord. The communion meal (which is something that all protestant churches DON'T ADHERE TO, because it has been devalued to just a thimble of grape juice and a cracker along with the same rebuke that Paul gave that gathering to a once a month event.) was being abused by the fact that they were choosing to be selective in their behavior and ways.
Now, You want to mince words with the Greek, then awesome cause I know it and have been studying it since I came to know the Lord and will gladly expound on the translational anomalies and the theological views they cause because of it.
But the issue isn't, nor was it the case. And If you didn't see it in my last post, then I will try to word myself in a more simpler way.
I was saying that you guys shouldn't be arguing, or seeing the differences in each other about stuff that has nothing to do with one verse that is taken out of context. What you should be doing is actually trying to show some sort of love, humility, honor, and respect to the very Lord you say you serve by following His one command that He has given you and LOVE one another. Because I see nothing to show it from all the bickering here. If one true mark of showing that we are His is most important, it is LOVE. Love is what differentiates us from the non-believers and the believers. That is the true mark of showing that we are His.
So with that being said, I will kindly leave this topic and leave all you wise brothers to see which is more important here. The theological viewpoint of a few scholars/scribes, or a mutual acting out of our love for one another in Christ?
Which ever you take is all up to you. I could have added verses to anything I said in this post as well as the last, but I trust that we all read the Word and can easily do that. But maybe instead of putting a few verses here, maybe the actions to back those verses should be a better example.
After all, what makes us any different from the Pharisee and Sadducee when it comes down to knowing the Word and acting on it? They knew the word and were theologically sound to the point of missing the long awaited Salvation of God when it came to visit them. Right? I mean, we are told to love one another as well as our enemies. Right? So even those who are different in view WITHIN the faith still deserve some sort of respect because Christ left us NO ROOM FOR EITHER.
Brother Bobbins, I hope that the only thing that jumps out at you with this post is the fact that we are to be ministers of reconciliation and nothing more than preach Christ crucified and glory in that alone.
May the peace, and love of Christ be in and upon you all, my brethren.
Just to clarify, as I said, I did not choose to point out all of the blunders. They were things such as this " It is nothing worth dwelling over to be sure," I think the gospel, the atonement, rebirth, etc. are definitely matters worth dwelling on. These are foundational to the Christian faith. If we were here debating over the color of church chairs, I would wholeheartedly agree with your statement. That is just one example.
I stated plainly that there were heresies brother. So, I am not sure what the Greek meaning of heresies has to do with anything and I have no need to mince words with the Greek. My point in it's entirety was stated plainly. Those heresies NEEDED TO BE.
Now, we can all hold hands, sit around a camp fire, roast marshmallows and sing "Kumbaya" together but that isn't going to change the fact that some theology is true and some is false. What better place to sort that out then a member based Christian only website away from the eyes of the world?
For far too long, the churches have promoted a humanistic definition of "love" and the expense of teaching and preaching sound doctrine. However brother, sound doctrine is essential. Without it, you would not even have an understanding of "love" in the first place. Nor would your admonition that Christians should be loving have any meaning or value.
I respect your desire to not continue in this thread. My answer to you here is for the benefit of all of the readers. Brother, May the peace, and love of Christ be in and upon you as well.
"Good grief-Carson is a compatibilist-he affirms both Gods sovereignty AND mans free will. Pretty much like the Arminians really!! So Carson and I agree-yet still you find this hard to believe! "
So, here is where at least part of YeshuaReigns confusion lies. He tries to hold God's sovereignty in dialectical tension with man's "free will" He does so under cover of "compatabilism". The Arminians agree with him he says and so does Carson. That's great, ain't it? The problem is that all of them are wrong despite the fancy soundin' terms like "compatabalism".
Here is why they are wrong: There is no freedom of any kind that is freedom from God. God is sovereign. And if the "compatabilist" is not asserting freedom from God than his whole point is irrelevant in the first place. Conclusion: If God is sovereign, man is not free and if man is free than God is not sovereign. There is no tension left.
Bobbins said: Just to clarify, as I said, I did not choose to point out all of the blunders. They were things such as this " It is nothing worth dwelling over to be sure," I think the gospel, the atonement, rebirth, etc. are definitely matters worth dwelling on. These are foundational to the Christian faith. If we were here debating over the color of church chairs, I would wholeheartedly agree with your statement. That is just one example.
ME: Really, bro? I find it odd that the only foundation that Paul's gospel was that Christ lived, died, and was resurrected according to the Scriptures (1 Cor. 15:1-9) and nothing more and yet you happen to think that those mentioned are foundational. How odd. Even odder still that the basic principles you mentioned are something that is considered as milk. You did not choose to clarify, yet you pointed out blunders, bro. Blunders according to what? Your theologically indoctrinated denominational biased view? How about you actually research where the origins of theology came from before you tote its importance? Theology, or the system theologica is purely of pagan descent and has nothing to do with the gospel or anything else that you guys are disputing here.
Bobbins sated: I stated plainly that there were heresies brother. So, I am not sure what the Greek meaning of heresies has to do with anything and I have no need to mince words with the Greek. My point in it's entirety was stated plainly. Those heresies NEEDED TO BE.
ME: Yes they NEEDED TO BE IN ORDER FOR US NOT TO REPEAT THEM IN LIKE MANNER. And yet that didn't jump out at anyone of you.
Bobbins stated: Now, we can all hold hands, sit around a camp fire, roast marshmallows and sing "Kumbaya" together but that isn't going to change the fact that some theology is true and some is false. What better place to sort that out then a member based Christian only website away from the eyes of the world?
ME: And how much more of a closed minded paganized theological argument that has nothing to do other than to elevate one's spiritual britches and belittle other believers in Christ and mark them as false teachers and Christians? If the eyes of the world would find this "debate" as a ridiculous example of how Christians bicker and can't find any reason to be one in Christ, then how much more edifying does it appear to the new believer in Christ to see such a sad display of attitudes towards fellow brothers and sisters?
Bobbins stated: For far too long, the churches have promoted a humanistic definition of "love" and the expense of teaching and preaching sound doctrine. However brother, sound doctrine is essential. Without it, you would not even have an understanding of "love" in the first place. Nor would your admonition that Christians should be loving have any meaning or value.
ME: Sound doctrine is essential. The problem is that because of the twisted theological denominational biases of HOW PREACHING AND TEACHING IS TO BE DONE has promoted this higher understanding of what the importance of anything is let alone "love." Where do the Scriptures teach any other doctrine than Christ crucified? THAT was the only thing that the apostles and disciples preached. But what has the modern scholar and theologian fleeced the flock into thinking now? The very same thing you just said. Every time you read the doctrine in Scripture, you should read into the fact that Jesus was the only teaching that the disciples spoke of. No other love is greater than one laying down his life for us. THAT SHOULD BE OUR AIM AND CONSTANT REMINDER. NOT the importance of baptisms and election and other such things that cause us to miss the point of Christ. I can't believe you actually inferred that without doctrine that I, or anyone else wouldn't know what love was about. Where does Corinthians 13 even suggest such a view?
You really want to talk doctrine? All the epistles(With the exception of Hebrews, Revelation and possibly Jude.) were written in chronological order within the book of acts and NOT ONCE DO YOU SEE THE DISCIPLES EVER DISCUSS ANYTHING OTHER THAN CHRIST WITHIN IT. So the people that are being told to watch out about the doctrine are all the believers who are being OPPOSED BY THE JEWS AND NON-BELIEVERS WHO OPPOSED THE GOSPEL. There is NO CASE THAT CAN BE MADE THAT IT WAS ABOUT BELIEVERS IN CHRIST in those epistles. NONE. The only ones who will make this case is the denominationally trained followers of a sect that was opposed because they took on another selective view point and started their own school to teach their brand of ideology in. And the fact that we have many denominations teaching that the other denomination is wrong is proof of this. But I doubt that you, or anyone who partakes in this will see it. The fact that you keep on posting more to "call out" another "false teacher and teaching" shows it.
Bobbins stated: I respect your desire to not continue in this thread. My answer to you here is for the benefit of all of the readers. Brother, May the peace, and love of Christ be in and upon you as well.
ME: Actually, your desire is clearly evident at the way you post towards others who don't see things your way as clearly self beneficial, brother. But then again, I could be wrong. And whether i am or not, you'll show me where with a thought of benefiting someone other than yourself. May His love be richly manifest in you, brother, and may your love love be the rich manifestation to others because of it.
Happy to take this whole discussion off thread with you. We can engage each other there in the hopes of both gaining more understanding. When we are done we can even hold hands and sing Kumbaya or just grab a burger, whatever.
