|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Feb 4, 2006 13:02:26 GMT -5
If Calvinism is true, it makes no sense calling sinners to repent.
If Calvinism is true, it makes no sense to weep over lost souls going to hell.
|
|
|
Post by tomah on Feb 4, 2006 14:33:00 GMT -5
I'm surprised at you brother. That's very naive of you. I would love to see Whitefields or Jonathan Edwards response if such statments were made in their presence.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Feb 4, 2006 14:35:36 GMT -5
No offensive is meant to be given. This is just an honest observation.
Some are Calvinist in theology, but seem to be Arminian in practice.
Even Spurgeon was called an Arminian because he called sinners to repent.
But if Calvinism is true, why weep for souls? God doesn't. It would be ungodly to weep for souls.
|
|
|
Post by tomah on Feb 4, 2006 14:45:41 GMT -5
God manifest in human flesh wept for souls, he wept over Jerusalem. Spurgeon said "pray like everything relies on God, and preach like everything relies on you." I suppose this may seem Calvinist in theology but Arminian in practice, but I would agree with it. There have been as many great Calvinistic soul winners as there have been great Arminian soul winners and they all would have a common denomiator when it comes to weeping for souls and commanding them to repent. One puritan once prayed "give me a holy gluttony for souls."
|
|
|
Post by Steve Noel on Feb 6, 2006 16:50:44 GMT -5
Jesse, I understand where you're coming from. In Acts 17:30-31 Paul says, "In the past God overlooked such ignorance, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent. For he has set a day when he will judge the world with justice by the man he has appointed. He has given proof of this to all men by raising him from the dead." If Calvinism is true, then God is COMMANDING people to repent that cannot repent. According to Calvinism the only people who can repent are those who God sovereignly regenerates first. How then can God judge the world with justice? The point has been made before that responsibility implies the ability to have done other than you did. We believe it is unjust to command that which is impossible. Would it be just to command a man to fly and then condemn him if he didn't? No, the very fact that God commands it of EVERYONE means it's possible for EVERYONE to do.
|
|
|
Post by tomah on Feb 6, 2006 20:40:14 GMT -5
If Arminianism is true then there is no point in asking to be filled with the Holy Ghost for preaching because it's all about how the person REACTS to the preaching (probably aided by how convincing the preacher is) because you say the God's work in salvation is given to all men (that word beginning with 'p' which I can't remember) probably at birth, so at the time of hearing the gospel it's all about how they react to the preacher, nothing to do with the Holy Ghost at that moment and time.
Again, there is no point in Arminians weeping over sinners because the salvation of the lost depends on the lost, not God. So there is no point weeping to God for sinners, that won't influence them. Weep infront of them and then yes, it might persuade them as they are moved by your persuading emotion, but it's nothing to do with God. If I weep over a sinner or sinners, I believe God has given me the grace needed to weep for those particular people that he may or may not save.
EDIT: the 'p' word is Prevenient I think
|
|
|
Post by Rick on Feb 8, 2006 2:20:56 GMT -5
Jesse, I understand where you're coming from. In Acts 17:30-31 Paul says, "In the past God overlooked such ignorance, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent. For he has set a day when he will judge the world with justice by the man he has appointed. He has given proof of this to all men by raising him from the dead." If Calvinism is true, then God is COMMANDING people to repent that cannot repent. According to Calvinism the only people who can repent are those who God sovereignly regenerates first. How then can God judge the world with justice? The point has been made before that responsibility implies the ability to have done other than you did. We believe it is unjust to command that which is impossible. Would it be just to command a man to fly and then condemn him if he didn't? No, the very fact that God commands it of EVERYONE means it's possible for EVERYONE to do. Steve, Steve Steve, when will you learn A assumption made by many is that when he says all people he means the all=the whole world Romans 1:7 - does it mean all in Rome? Luke 2:1 All the world, man did everyone from China and other nations not under Roman rule come to be taxed or was it all under roman rule, just as in Acts, all that the father has given him. Just like in Luke all the world should be taxed, was all the world taxed. Nope, context, context, context. Study history my brothers, pelagianism to Arminianism it's the same stuff just turned over again. Jesse, why would a Calvinist call sinners to repent, hmmm, 1. Obedience to God because he uses the foolishness of preaching to save the lost (whom he has chosen) and 2. because we don't know who is of the elect, so once again we are obedient to preach. By the way have you ever in your life heard a arminian prayer?? Nope me either, as has been said before by some old dead guys, everyone is a calvinist when they are on their knees. By the way Steve, the idea of... if I ought I can, referencing your last few sentences in your post....study history again Pelagius made that statment and was condemed a heretic for it by many church councils throughout the ages. Arminians and Calvinist's can serve together, Wesley, Whitfield and Edwards were all a aprt of the great awakening, but please understand the difference between, Pelagianism, Semi-Pelagianism & Arminianism. Historically there is HUGE difference, Some History www.spindleworks.com/library/bouwman/canon/History2.htmHere is the DVD I offered for free before, here is where you can by it. www.monergismbooks.com/amazinggracedvd.htmlBy the way I have read Finneys systematic theology since last on here, I greatly respect Wesley, Finney is a Heretic though..pure pelagian. I beg you to read this with an open mind and heart www.spurgeon.org/~phil/articles/finney.htm
|
|
|
Post by Kerrigan on Feb 8, 2006 11:25:26 GMT -5
I had never studied Finney before. I have read his biography and started to read one of his books, but laid it down after reading it a little while, deciding I didn't agree with his theology. Then I read this: I beg you to read this with an open mind and heart www.spurgeon.org/~phil/articles/finney.htmAnd I will tell you that it is an eye-opener. I have only read half of it so far, but will read the rest later (not sure I need to). Finney had some issues that is for sure. I know that at the end of his life, he said something to this degree: I fear that most of my converts were false converts. That's not an exact quote, but you get the gist of what he said...
|
|
|
Post by Rick on Feb 8, 2006 12:52:05 GMT -5
please keep in mind that the link that revk is showing has quotes from Finney himself and from his systematic theology, it isn't opinion.
|
|
|
Post by Steve Noel on Feb 8, 2006 17:01:17 GMT -5
Ah, now I understand that "all people everywhere" actually means some people in some places. Apparently you don't believe that God commands all sinners to repent . Or to be more accurate you believe that the text says that God only commands some sinners to repent. The rest he doesn't command to repent. Sorry Rick I don't think that's biblical. But this is: "For God has bound all men over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all." Romans 11:32 The scope and intention of his mercy is equal to the scope of mankinds sinfulness. Calvinists must twist these Scriptures because they refute their theology. They come up with nonsense like "all kinds of people", or "all of the elect". Rick, I would encourage you to study out the origins of Augustinianism. I think you'll find that his theology and concept of God is heavily borrowed from uninspired Greek phiolosphers. This is well known and documented.
|
|
|
Post by Steve Noel on Feb 8, 2006 18:21:42 GMT -5
The above link about Finney: www.spurgeon.org/~phil/articles/finney.htmIs here refuted: www.stopsinning.net/Johnson.htmAs I've already noted you won't get an unbiased view of Finney from a Calvinist (He works for/with John MacArthur Jr.). Here's a quote from the article: I consider the following comments from Johnson to be the most offensive in his paper. Johnson has followed Michael Horton's lead and espoused nothing less than a lie when he states:
"Under Finney's system, Christ could not have actually borne anyone else's sin or suffered sin's full penalty in their place and in their stead (contra Isaiah 53:6; 1 Peter 2:24; 1 John 2:2). Finney therefore rejected the doctrine of substitutionary atonement." (Wolf 5)
This is completely false! Finney defined the atonement as:
"The Greek word rendered atonement is katallage. This means reconciliation to favor, or more strictly, the means or conditions of reconciliation to favor; from katallasso, to "change, or exchange." The term properly means substitution. An examination of these original words, in the connection in which they stand, will show that the atonement is the governmental substitution of the sufferings of Christ for the punishment of sinners. It is a covering of their sins by His sufferings." (Atonement II, pg 197)
The real issue is something other than that addressed by Johnson, and I encourage you to find out why people like him feel so compelled to misrepresent Finney. If you believe what Johnson has written, you will either flee Finney as a demon or hunt him - and people like myself - as a heretic. I am not concerned by the fact that I hold views that conflict with Johnson's; but I refuse to sit back and let him put up a smoke screen and be condemned by a false witness.
|
|
|
Post by josh on Mar 7, 2006 12:01:19 GMT -5
Ah, now I understand that "all people everywhere" actually means some people in some places. Apparently you don't believe that God commands all sinners to repent . Or to be more accurate you believe that the text says that God only commands some sinners to repent. The rest he doesn't command to repent. Sorry Rick I don't think that's biblical. But this is: "For God has bound all men over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all." Romans 11:32 The scope and intention of his mercy is equal to the scope of mankinds sinfulness. Calvinists must twist these Scriptures because they refute their theology. They come up with nonsense like "all kinds of people", or "all of the elect". Rick, I would encourage you to study out the origins of Augustinianism. I think you'll find that his theology and concept of God is heavily borrowed from uninspired Greek phiolosphers. This is well known and documented. You present a good argument, would like to hear someone from the Reformed camp reply...
|
|
|
Post by ebrayley on Mar 7, 2006 12:54:48 GMT -5
"The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance."
I don't see how you can get around this, or even good old John 3:16:
"For God so loved the world... that whosoever..."
|
|
|
Post by Steve Noel on Mar 7, 2006 13:10:00 GMT -5
Josh,
I too am interested in a response. Let me say that I'm fully aware that in some contexts "all" and "world" do not mean literally every person. Rick's argument was basically:
"All" & "World" are limited in some contexts, therefore they're limited in every context.
When Paul says "all have sinned..." (Ro 3:23) we certainly don't believe that all is limited even though in context he's speaking of the Jews and Gentiles as people groups. In the same letter when he says that "God has bound all men over to disobedience so that he might have mercy on them all" (Ro 11:32) he again is talking about Jews and Gentiles as people groups. Are we to conclude that these Scriptures don't include every person within these people groups?
Steve
|
|
|
Post by tomah on Mar 7, 2006 14:53:16 GMT -5
Many make the fundamental exegetical error of taking the word "world" (Greek: kosmos) to mean "everybody head for head" in John 1:29; 3:16; I John 2:2. Charles Spurgeon noted that nowhere in the Bible does "world" have this meaning. I challenge anyone to find one Biblical verse where "world" means "everybody head for head," and then prove that it has this meaning in a text teaching the extent of Christ’s atonement. Kosmos can mean the universe (Acts 17:24) or the Roman world (Col. 1:6) or the evil world system (John 12:31) or the reprobate (John 17:9) or the elect (John 4:42; 6:33; II Cor. 5:19) etc. The context is vital in explaining the Word, according to the great Reformation principle: Scripture interprets Scripture.
Just hours before the cross and with a view to His atoning death, Christ says, "I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast given me" (John 17:9). If Jesus did not do a lesser thing (pray for the reprobate world), how could He do a greater thing (die for the reprobate world)? If Christ did not pray for the ungodly world (one aspect of His priestly work), is it possible that He died for the ungodly world (the other aspect of His priestly work)? Moreover, Christ prays on the basis of His work of redemption. Therefore if Christ did not pray for the reprobate world, it is because He did not purchase salvation for them. Christ’s prayers and atonement are not only particular—"for them which thou hast given me"—but also exclusive, not "for the world."
|
|
|
Post by Steve Noel on Mar 7, 2006 16:23:30 GMT -5
Armen,
What does "world" mean in Romans 3:19?
"Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be silenced and the whole world held accountable to God."
Will "everybody head for head" be held accountable to God?
Paul is making the case in the first three chapters of Romans that everybody head for head is a sinner (Gentiles as well as Jews). When he says "the whole world" in 3:19 it clearly implies everybody head for head.
|
|
|
Post by Steve Noel on Mar 7, 2006 16:46:40 GMT -5
John 1:29
"The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him and said, 'Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!"If this doesn't mean that Jesus died for all mankind, then what does it mean? Armen you wrote that "world" sometimes means "the elect". Your proof texts for this statement are: John 4:42 "They said to the woman, 'We no longer believe just because of what you said; now we have heard for ourselves, and we know that this man really is the Savior of the world."
John 6:33 "For the bread of God is he who comes down from heaven and gives life to the world."
2 Corinthians 5:19 "that God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting men's sins against them..."The Bible never speaks of unsaved people as the elect. When Scriptures speaks of the elect it's always talking about those who are already Christians. There's no such thing as people who are elect but not yet saved in the Bible. The "world" in John never means the elect. In your interpretation of these verses the world is the church. I remind you here of something I posted before that shows this position to be unscriptural: "Norman F. Doutry, a 4-point Calvinist, dilligently searched out this question. He lists the following works:
1. Trench's Synonyms of the New Testament 2. Kittel's Theological Dictionary of the New Testament 3. Vine's Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words 4. Vincent's Word Studies in the New Testament 5. Robinson's A Greek and English Lexicon of the New Testament 6. Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament 7. Berry's Interlinear Greek-English New Testament 8. Arndt-Gingrich's A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament 9. The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge 10. Hastings' Bible Dictionary and Dictionary of the Apostolic church 11. International Standard Bible Encyclopedia 12. Tasker's New Bible Dictionary 13. Everett F. Harrison in Baker's Dictionary of Theology 14. John D. Davis in his Dictionary of the Bible
Then Doutry says,
"But amid all the divisions and sub-divisions listed, the word [for world] is never said to denote 'the elect.' These lexicons know nothing of such a use of kosmos (Gk. for world) in the New Testament, under which to tabulate John 1:29; 3:16-18; 4:42; 6:33, 51; 12:47; 14:31;16:8-11; 17:21, 23; 2 Cor. 5:19; 1 John 2:2; 4:14."
He then concludes,
"All of this is disastrous for the advocates of Limited Atonement. They have ventured to set themselves above the combined scholarship of our lexicons, encylopedias and dictionaries, when they have ascribed a further signification to the word kosmos, which will support their theological system."
|
|
|
Post by tomah on Mar 8, 2006 14:47:58 GMT -5
Armen, What does "world" mean in Romans 3:19? "Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be silenced and the whole world held accountable to God." Will "everybody head for head" be held accountable to God? Paul is making the case in the first three chapters of Romans that everybody head for head is a sinner (Gentiles as well as Jews). When he says "the whole world" in 3:19 it clearly implies everybody head for head. Almost brother...but not quite as it doesn't include the Lord Jesus Christ.
|
|
|
Post by tomah on Mar 8, 2006 14:50:25 GMT -5
As I have said:
These portions of scripture support the doctrine of Limited Atonement:
Jn 10:26 "Ye believe not BECAUSE ye are not of my sheep" Here it would seem that Christ indicates that the reason they did not believe was because they were not of his sheep. From that we can conclude that those that ARE his sheep, WILL believe.
Eph 5:25 "Christ also loved the church and gave himself for it" From the two verbs 'loved and 'it' it may be inferred both that the church enjoyed a special existence and a standing before Christ such that he "loved" he PRIOR to his "giving" of himself for it, and that his love for his church was the motivating power behind his "giving" himself for it. The 'church' must represent a certain people, otherwise a husband is to love every woman the same, rather than having a special love for his wife.
Also, it must be recognised that both repantance and faith are gifts/graces given to a sinner by God. If Jesus died for all and God desired all to be saved, then why not give the graces of repentance and faith to every man?
Faith is a gift/grace - Eph 2:8 Repentance is a gift/grace - Acts 11:18, 2 Tim 2:25
|
|
|
Post by Steve Noel on Mar 8, 2006 19:49:35 GMT -5
First of all it should noted that John 10:26 has nothing to say about the atonement and so is irrelevant to this topic. Second, no one who believes in unlimited atonement has a problem with verses that say Jesus died for "his sheep", "his church", "his people", etc. We just believe that Jesus did not die for them alone. Charles Finney wrote concerning this, "Those who object to the general atonement, take substantially the same course to evade this doctrine, that Unitarians do to set aside the doctrine of the Trinity and the Divinity of Christ. They quote those passages that prove the unity of God and the humanity of Christ, and then take it for granted that they have disproved the doctrine of the Trinity and Christ's Divinity. The asserters of limited atonement, in like manner, quote those passages that prove that Christ died for the elect and for his saints, and then take it for granted that he died for none else. To the Unitarian, we reply, we admit the unity of God and the humanity of Christ, and the full meaning of those passages of scripture which you quote in proof of these doctrines; but we insist that this is not the whole truth, but that there are still other passages which prove the doctrine of the Trinity, and the Divinity of Christ. Just so to the asserters of limited atonement, we reply: we believe that Christ laid down his life for his sheep, as well as you; but we also believe that "he tasted death for every man." Dr. Robert Lightner says the same thing, "The task of harmonizing those various Scriptures poses a far greater problem for those who hold to a limited atonement than it does to those who hold to an unlimited position. Those who hold to an unlimited atonement recognize that some Scriptures emphasize the fact that Christ died for the elect, for the church, and for individual believers. However, they point out that when those verses single out a specific group they do not do so to the exclusion of any who are outside that group since dozens of other passages include them. The “limited” passages are just emphasizing one aspect of a larger truth. In contrast, those who hold to a limited atonement have a far more difficult time explaining away the “unlimited” passages" Millard Erickson likewise says that, "statements about Jesus loving and dying for his church or his sheep need not be understood as confining his special love and salvific death strictly to them....It does not follow from a statement that Christ died for his church, or for his sheep, that he did not die for anyone else, unless, of course, the passage specifically states that it was only for them that he died....Certainly if Christ died for the whole, there is no problem in asserting that he died for a specific part of the whole. To insist that those passages which focus on his dying for his people require the understanding that he died only for them and not for any others contradicts the universal passages. We conclude that the hypothesis of universal atonement is able to account for a larger segment of the biblical witness with less distortion than is the hypothesis of limited atonement." In essence the doctrine of limited atonement is an argument from silence. This is one of the chief hermeneutical errors to guard against.
|
|
|
Post by evanschaible on Mar 9, 2006 19:07:39 GMT -5
The calvinistic viewpoint and the hypercalvinistic viewpoints differ greatly. In Spurgeons day he battled and the hypercalvinists and was ridiculed by thers due to the hypercalvinists. the scriptures plainly teach every doctrine that are found within the five points, as far as I can see. One problem many seem to face is the doctrines of election and eternal security. Election is summed up and driven home for me in two places in Jesus teachings. In John 17:1-2 we read, "These words spake Jesus and lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, Father, the hour is come; glorify thy son, that thy son also may glorify thee: As thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him." This should seal the deal for most people as Jesus himself says "as many as thou hast given him" but doctrine is made up of many verses, not just one. Someone may say here that Jesus meant only the apostles, verse 20 says otherwise. You yourselves can look to the scriptures for others that talk of this doctrine, but let me make it practical, if I can. We dont know the secret workings of God. God knows from the foundation of the who will be saved, and none can come to the son lest the father draw him. However, we dont know what God knows as he is omniscient and we are not. So, since we know not who will be saved, and the faculty of man is still used of God to preach and labor, we must weep and preach and pray, because when it comes to those high and lofty things of God, we are ignorant. In regards to the eternal wecurity doctrine the westminster catechism in one of the appendixes it has the outline pof TULIP and calls this doctrine 'Perseverance of the saints" which puts a illuminating light upon this great debate. It is not eternal security, it is perseverance, he who endures to the end shall be saved. If we persevere through all, then God will never leave or forsake us. Correct me if I am wrong.
|
|
|
Post by Steve Noel on Mar 9, 2006 20:44:13 GMT -5
Evan,
Both sides agree that the Scriptures teach election. But I don't believe that the Scriptures teach unconditional individual election. The fact that the Father knows who will be saved does not mean that he determined who will be saved unconditionally.
|
|
|
Post by Grant on Mar 10, 2006 0:11:49 GMT -5
I might be wrong but let me take a stab at something... A way of understanding how someone might look at the passages speaking of predestination, predetermined, and elected might be as follows:
- One can determine something (in general) by looking at the evidence. Knowing the facts help us make a determination on a subject. - GOD, being all knowing, knows our character and hence can "pre-determine" that someone will ultimately meet His conditions.
One might not fully agree with the second [theological] viewpoint, but the first is true and hence shows how those passages can also be viewed.
Just my 2 cents.
|
|
|
Post by tomah on Mar 10, 2006 10:21:22 GMT -5
Evan, Both sides agree that the Scriptures teach election. But I don't believe that the Scriptures teach unconditional individual election. The fact that the Father knows who will be saved does not mean that he determined who will be saved unconditionally. To say that someone is 'elected' as a result of his own choice just doesn't make sense. It goes against the basic meaning of the word. Think about it brother. You say (as the bible teaches) you're 'elected' in Christ. But in the same breath you could say, "I chose to come to Christ"...it's a contradiction. If election is only pronounced upon a man AFTER he chooses Christ, then he was NEVER elected at all, he just chose it himself. If there were a selection of children up for adoption, with your theology you have the child picking the parents and then saying that he was 'elected'. It just doesn't make sense! God is our Father, we have been adopted into His family and it is all because HE chose us, WAY before we knew anything of it; yea, from "before the foundation of the world" Eph 1:4
|
|
|
Post by tomah on Mar 10, 2006 10:24:29 GMT -5
In regards to the eternal wecurity doctrine the westminster catechism in one of the appendixes it has the outline pof TULIP and calls this doctrine 'Perseverance of the saints" which puts a illuminating light upon this great debate. It is not eternal security, it is perseverance, he who endures to the end shall be saved. If we persevere through all, then God will never leave or forsake us. Correct me if I am wrong. This is why I prefer the term 'Preservation' rather than perseverance. It is only by the grace and strength of God that we 'persevere' so therefore it is more 'preservation' because it's all to do with God.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Mar 10, 2006 10:52:17 GMT -5
Here is what I don't understand. If salvation and sanctification were both complete works of God, and not of man at all, why wouldn't God sanctify a man wholly?
It seems like predestination and sinless perfect would be a fitting match.
CAN A GENUINE CHRISTIAN LEAVE GOD?
Armen, so you believe it is impossible for a Christian to backslide? That to me could be a form of "perfection". I teach that a Christian can sin, but a Christian doesn't have to sin. Both loyalty and mutiny are possible.
But if it were impossible for a Christian to backslide what about these verses?
Ac 13:43 - "Now when the congregation was broken up, many of the Jews and religious proselytes followed Paul and Barnabas: who, speaking to them, persuaded them to continue in the grace of God."
Doesn't this mean that they could leave the grace of God? And if only the false converts were capable of "leaving" God's grace, why would Paul encourage them to remain in something that they don't actually have? This verse only makes sense if you can leave the grace of God.
Ac 14:22 - "Confirming the souls of the disciples, and exhorting them to continue in the faith, and that we must through much tribulation enter into the kingdom of God. "
Why exhort someone to continue in the faith, if leaving the faith was an impossibility? If only false converts could "leave" the faith (which they don't even have, so how could they leave it?) then why not encourage them to leave, so that they might actually become real converts and stop resting in their false comfort? This verse only makes sense if genuine believes could choose to leave the faith.
Ro 11:22 - "Therefore consider the goodness and severity of God: on those who fell, severity; but toward you, goodness, if you continue in His goodness. Otherwise you also will be cut off."
If even the "chosen" nation of Israel was cut off, why couldn't even the gentile "elect" and "chosen" be cut off?
Heb 3:12 - Beware, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief in departing from the living God
Paul here addresses the brethren and warns them about departing from God.
1Co 10:12 - "Therefore let him who thinks he stands take heed lest he fall."
If this where talking about sinners or false converts, what would they be falling from?
When we understand that you could backslide and also that you can continue in the faith, we can start working out our own salvations with fear and trembling.
There are other verses that teach that a Christian can backslide, but these are just some quick ones.
|
|
|
Post by evanschaible on Mar 12, 2006 11:48:04 GMT -5
Eternal security is surely the bane of the modern pulpit, Continuance within the grace of God is a truth that cannot be denied. Seems how brother Jesse has already given scripture evidence, let me illustrate with a short few sentences why eternal security is false: If eternal security were true then all who have come to God would have a license to sin, like James Bond and his license to kill we would have royal permission to live in sin and in grace. However, sin and grace are totally contrary to one another. One cannot live in sin and claim the grace of God as their own. Eternal security would give that license and people would feel know need for dicipline, no need for growth, and no need for prayer or anything of that nature because they are eternally secure. I wonder if Paul belived in eternal security the way it is presented today? He was awfully disciplined and seperate from the world.
|
|
|
Post by tomah on Mar 12, 2006 12:35:09 GMT -5
Eternal security is surely the bane of the modern pulpit, Continuance within the grace of God is a truth that cannot be denied. Seems how brother Jesse has already given scripture evidence, let me illustrate with a short few sentences why eternal security is false: If eternal security were true then all who have come to God would have a license to sin, like James Bond and his license to kill we would have royal permission to live in sin and in grace. However, sin and grace are totally contrary to one another. One cannot live in sin and claim the grace of God as their own. Eternal security would give that license and people would feel know need for dicipline, no need for growth, and no need for prayer or anything of that nature because they are eternally secure. I wonder if Paul belived in eternal security the way it is presented today? He was awfully disciplined and seperate from the world. Grrrr....dear brethren! Understand this, that when God saves someone, that person is regenerated that is, that very life of God is placed within that person. Therefore they have NO license to sin because they CANNOT sin without hating themselves for it! EVERY genuine Christian, whether Arminian or Calvinistic will HATE themselves if/when they sin! If they do not, they ARE NOT SAVED! Understand? Now quit with this 'license to sin' nonsense. This is not a direct attack on you Evan, but I have just had enough of people saying that Calvinism gives a license to sin. It does not. If you would only read the writtings of genuine, holy, reformed men and not use these so-called calvinistic charismatic apostates as examples of what the doctrines of grace teach. God bless! P.S. I'm not so sure whether a genuine Christian can backslide or not. This is interesting - www.scionofzion.com/backsliding.htm
|
|
|
Post by evanschaible on Mar 12, 2006 12:54:31 GMT -5
I have been studying the Westminister Catechism and so far so good. Brother I challenge you to find for me a scripture proof for eternal security that is not directly linked with obediance. If I have just overlooked or read to fast on some things then I will take your rebuke to heart brother. However, I think that eternal security gives people the mind set that they can do whatever they want because they have no way of "shipwrecking their faith" like some of the Apostles Pauls friends did when they forsook him because they "loved this present world." However, Paul does, as Jesse has already pointed out, call them BRETHREN and yet they fell.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Mar 12, 2006 15:22:51 GMT -5
Well, I know that I am capable of leaving the Lord if I choose to. Adam walked with God, but then decided to sin rather than obey God.
The Apostle Peter taught that you could backslide.
"Which have forsaken the right way, and are gone astray, following the way of Balaam the son of Bosor, who loved the wages of unrighteousness." 2 Peter 2:15
Here the Apostle Peter teaches that you can actually forsake the right way.
"For if after they have escaped the pollutions of the world, through the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in them and overcome, the latter end is worse with them than the beginning." 2 Peter 2:20
Here the Apostle Peter teaches that you can escape the pollutions of the world through Jesus Christ, and then be entangled back again in the world, and your end is worse then if you had not gotten saved in the first place.
"For it had been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than, after they have known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered unto them." 2 Peter 2:21
Here the Apostle Peter teaches you can "turn from" it.
The Apostle Paul taught in other places, besides the scriptures I listed above, where He taught one could backslide.
"Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be tought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of God." Hebrews 10:29
And, "Now the just shall live by faith, but if any man draw back, my soul ahll have no pleasure in him. But we are not of those who draw back unto perdition; but of them that believe unto the saving of the soul." Hebrews 10:38-39
Paul again teaches that you could "draw back". He uses the word "if" because it's possible to draw back, and it is possible to "continue in the faith" Acts 14:22
If one can "draw back unto peridition" where was he before he drew back? He must not have been in a spiritual state that would have lead him to death.
|
|