|
Post by Kerrigan on Jan 6, 2009 16:43:16 GMT -5
The bible does not teach porbationary periods nor for a human nor angel. Oh yeah it does. I encourage everyone to check this out for themselves. I preached a message called, " Initial Salvation, Final Salvation and Probation" a while back. It is FILLED with Scriptures that back up all three Biblical doctrines. Just as a side note, Tozer said something to the effect of, "A man of God needs to preach about and restore the Biblical doctrine of probation." I suppose that you are referring to Matthew 12:30? If so, you have just done what Calvinists ALWAYS do when it comes to their false doctrines. You have just isolated a verse that has nothing to do with the doctrine you are trying to prove through it- Original Sin. In this passage Jesus was addressing the Pharisees who were claiming that he was casting out demons by the power of Beelzebul. If you want to know what Jesus thought of children, let alone new born babies, go read Matthew 18:3 and 19:13-15. Babies are born innocent, having done no good nor evil. As I said, He did not atone for their sins, for it would be a waste of time. They will NEVER repent. And God doesn't know this because He "looked into the future and saw it". Like I said. they became reprobate as soon as they sinned because of the knowledge that they sinned against. Because they sinned against FULL knowledge of God, there is no hope for them to repent. There is nothing more that God can do for them... All in all, your atonement view is off in my mind. Christ made a way for all sinners to be reconciled to God through His Blood. It is not a matter of atoning for this sin or that sin and not atoning for this sin or that sin. It is a matter of Christ making a way for sinners to be forgiven. You are coming from the point of view that Christ was an exact payment for a literal amount of sins. The Bible doesn't teach that and I don't believe that. Oh, and by the way, I'm not an "Arminian" or an "Open Theist"
|
|
|
Post by Kerrigan on Jan 6, 2009 13:34:58 GMT -5
Yes, we, as humans do have a probationary period while on earth. There is, however, NO HOPE for the Satan and the 1/3 of the angels that fell with him. Their situation and our situation is very different though. I guess you could say that Heaven was their probationary period. Satan and the angels who fell from Heaven automatically became apostate as soon as they sinned. They had all the knowledge of God that a being (whether human or angel) could possibly ever have and they rejected fellowship with Him through their sin. They were in presence of Almighty God!
That's what a reprobate is. A reprobate is someone who God has done all He can to influence them and give them knowledge of Him and they reject it. If someone rejects someone or something at the highest possible knowledge of that person or thing, then they will never except that person or thing at a lower state of knowledge.
There couldn't possibly ever be an atonement for Satan and the fallen angels. They would never accept it! It would be a waste of an atonement! Human beings have an entirely different situation then the fallen angels do though. We are born immature, without understanding and knowledge and not being in His presence. Then, as we grow and sin, we sin against our conscience and the moral law of God. God tries to draw us and influence us, etc., and we reject. If at any point in time during our probationary period here on Earth God gives us the greatest amount of knowledge of Him that is possible and we reject it, then we become reprobates. God has done ALL HE CAN DO! There's nothing else God can do to help the sinner at that point.
So, God can give up on a sinner in this life. Even if someone doesn't become a reprobate in this life, every person who dies in their sins automatically becomes a reprobate. God alone has the power of life and death. Every person who ever has died or ever will die has been either killed by God or God allowed them to die. Therefore, if someone dies in their sins, God has give up on them. There time to repent has run out. There is no more that God can do for that person. They are reprobates...
As far as the limited atonement question, well, when Calvinists talk about a "limited atonement", they aren't saying that it is limited only to humans. They are saying that it is limited only to a certain few, select humans that God picked out before the beginning of time. THAT is what I reject. I mean, we could say that it is a limited atonement because Christ didn't die to save dogs, trees, birds and fish. We could say limited atonement because Christ didn't shed his blood for aliens (no, I don't believe in aliens), but that isn't what the doctrine of limited atonement says...
|
|
|
2009...
Jan 5, 2009 21:10:19 GMT -5
Post by Kerrigan on Jan 5, 2009 21:10:19 GMT -5
Amen JK!
|
|
|
Post by Kerrigan on Jan 5, 2009 21:09:34 GMT -5
Good question Josh...
"jsides", I think that Jesse understands God's will just fine. He just doesn't think that everything that happens is God's will like a Calvinist does. I doubt it was God's will for Jesse's account to get shut down on YouTube. He may have allowed it, but that doesn't mean that it was His will that it happen. As far as YouTube having the right to shut his account down or not, well, that isn't even the question. The question is WHY did they shut it down? Were they discriminatory in the process and were they following their own policies?
|
|
|
Post by Kerrigan on Jan 5, 2009 18:43:04 GMT -5
I think that it may be about time for you to be banned...
|
|
|
Post by Kerrigan on Jan 3, 2009 15:26:57 GMT -5
Amen! ;D
|
|
|
Post by Kerrigan on Jan 2, 2009 10:36:19 GMT -5
Mike, you still aren't getting it brother. You are still straw manning the position. I encourage you to really lay aside your assumptions and read through the Bible again and back through the posts made here. God Bless...
|
|
|
Post by Kerrigan on Jan 1, 2009 19:55:06 GMT -5
I think the problem Mike is that you are assuming that Cain was FIRST a child of the devil and then committed sin. I take the position that he committed sin FIRST and then became a child of the devil. The point that Ken is making here, and I agree with it, is that Cain had a free will, no sin nature, no original sin and could have chosen to sin or not. The point isn't that any of us are saying that Cain's works would have saved him. That isn't even the context...
|
|
|
Post by Kerrigan on Dec 31, 2008 16:52:16 GMT -5
Jesse - I realize that recently you have come under attack by many Calvinist on Youtube, do you think this could have been the work of one of them? This truly saddens me to see how not only Youtube has canceled your account but that other so called Christians have brought horrible accusations against you at the same time. We will definitely keep you in our prayers. Preston These are my thoughts as well. I think that the calvinists had something to do with it. Also, Jesse, did you read that it says that if you try to open another account that it will be shut down as well? It seems like if they ban one of your accounts, that it equals a lifetime ban...
|
|
|
Post by Kerrigan on Dec 31, 2008 16:50:48 GMT -5
Someone just emailed me through YouTube about Jesse's account and told me that the YouTube used revivalisneeded was suspended too. I think his name was James and he was the ex-mormon that was always preaching to mormons. He used to use the Book of Hezekiah trick on them. Anyway, hopefully ADF can do something about this...
|
|
|
Post by Kerrigan on Dec 30, 2008 15:05:17 GMT -5
Welcome! Keep up the great work in Jesus' name!
|
|
|
Post by Kerrigan on Dec 30, 2008 10:13:28 GMT -5
Happy Birthday Michelle!
|
|
|
Post by Kerrigan on Dec 28, 2008 11:06:05 GMT -5
Looks good. I thought that A Cross and a Switchblade was great too!
|
|
|
Post by Kerrigan on Dec 28, 2008 9:08:13 GMT -5
benjoseph, I think that Jesse is referring to initial salvation while you are referring to final salvation, so you are both right. There is a probationary period in between too. Here is a sermon that I preached on this subject: "Initial Salvation, Final Salvation and Probation"God Bless...
|
|
|
Post by Kerrigan on Dec 27, 2008 21:55:33 GMT -5
You could make this the "Question of the Week" on the radio show tomorrow.
|
|
|
Post by Kerrigan on Dec 27, 2008 21:54:33 GMT -5
I find it deeply disturbing that God will create a person He knows will sin and go to hell. If God knows it is going to happen and He creates them anyways, than it must be His plan that they sin and go to hell. Why did God repent of making Adam and Eve (Gen. 6:5-6) if they did everything He created them to do? That's what I was thinking...
|
|
|
Post by Kerrigan on Dec 27, 2008 12:21:03 GMT -5
I don't like the style of his argument but I think it has some substance. Especially this line: "and if, as we have seen, God's foreknowledge of his own acts does not render them necessary, and destroy his free agency, how can it be consistently argued that God's foreknowledge of the acts of men renders them necessary, and destroys their free agency?" The fact that God has foreknowledge of what he intends to do doesn't destroy his freedom does it? I don't see how this can be denied. Therefore God's acts are both certain and contingent. If that's the case then how can it be denied that an event can be both certain and contingent? If an event can be both certain and contingent then God can foreknow with certainty the contingent choices of men. This seems to beg the question though. He applies his own theology to his argument. He needs to do an internal critique of the other view, not an external one. He seems to be saying: 1) God's foreknowledge of man's choices doesn't take away their free will 2) Therefore God's foreknowledge of his own choices doesn't take away His own free will The open theist says that God doesn't have foreknowledge of man's free will choices. He says that God has foreknowledge of what HE has already chosen to bring to pass (prophecies, etc.). How does this refute open theism? Maybe I am missing something?
|
|
|
Post by Kerrigan on Dec 27, 2008 9:59:41 GMT -5
I'm sorry Steve, but I'm just not seeing it brother. It doesn't seem to address the argument at all. He seems to just state the argument of the Calvinist and Open Theist and then just make them sound stupid without giving any kind of philosophical or Scriptural argument for his case. It's too bad too, because I am really wanting Him to have a good argument...
|
|
|
Post by Kerrigan on Dec 25, 2008 14:49:19 GMT -5
As far as I know they both believe in free will in the Arminian sense. Meaning they hold to original sin and universal prevenient grace. They do both believe you can lose salvation. I'm not sure exactly what you mean by the question about holiness. I don't know if I've read much on this from these particular authors but I assume they both think you have to live holy. Thanks Steve, I will give them a read...
|
|
|
Post by Kerrigan on Dec 25, 2008 14:47:25 GMT -5
Hey Jesse, you should email Pat Necerato to see if he is up for another debate...this one on Open Theism. I think that he hates the doctrine of Open Theism more than he does the lack of belief in Original Sin. We could do it on the radio show and I could moderate. I bet he would be up for it...
|
|
|
Post by Kerrigan on Dec 25, 2008 12:56:12 GMT -5
Hey Steve, before I begin reading these articles, can you tell me a little about these guys? I just don't want to waste my time:
1) Do they believe in free will? 2) Do they believe in holiness? 3) Do they believe that one can lose their salvation?
I would like to read a book or some articles of some who believe in the 3 above points and don't believe in Open Theism. Maybe they would have some of the same objections that I have. Thanks...
|
|
|
Post by Kerrigan on Dec 25, 2008 12:51:22 GMT -5
Tyler, what I posted was an exact quote...
|
|
|
Post by Kerrigan on Dec 24, 2008 22:24:01 GMT -5
Looks great Brian!
|
|
|
Post by Kerrigan on Dec 24, 2008 21:16:59 GMT -5
Tyler, Jesse isn't "preaching to the choir" as you say. He's simply refuting the point that you made to me...that's all. And he did it in the same way that I would have. The fact is that by the 6th century, the Roman Catholic Church already was messed up. Maybe not AS MUCH as it is today, but this Calvinist who used these synods as the authority for proving Original Sin to be "orthodox" and "essential" would have had nothing to do with them. He would have considered them heretics!
|
|
|
Post by Kerrigan on Dec 24, 2008 12:47:00 GMT -5
This is what a Calvinist posted about the debate on another message board:
I'm sorry, but wasn't it the Roman Catholic Church that "fought" and "won" this debate in the 6th century? It's this kind of fear tactics, assumptions and fallacious reasoning (saying that some council decides what is truth) that lead to people being stuck in this false teaching.
|
|
|
Post by Kerrigan on Dec 23, 2008 22:45:19 GMT -5
This guy is obviously one of Saint Ross's disciples. HAHAHA! Ross, are you willing to take credit for this guy?
|
|
|
Post by Kerrigan on Dec 23, 2008 22:40:36 GMT -5
Amen Jesse! It is so amazing to me how blind Calvinists are to their picking and choosing of Scriptures here and there, twisting them and then proclaiming that the whole Bible teaches their twisted interpretation of their proof-texts! Men of God should have risen up long ago to come against this heresy. They've had so much time to propagate their false doctrine that they've made it into a system and have thoroughly deceived the visible "church" into believing that their views are orthodoxy!
|
|
|
Post by Kerrigan on Dec 23, 2008 15:05:51 GMT -5
This guy has got to just be some mocker. Just look at his username...
|
|
|
Post by Kerrigan on Dec 21, 2008 19:37:52 GMT -5
Sounds pretty cool. I will try to remember and listen in. Why don't you send us a reminder over here a couple of days beforehand Chris? I disagree with both sides, but think that Arminianism is more easily defeatable because it isn't as logical or close knit and, as Jesse said, borrows some of its theology from Calvinism...
|
|
|
Post by Kerrigan on Dec 20, 2008 19:41:31 GMT -5
Yes, there were LOTS of straw men arguments. I didn't want to waste all of my time responding to them, so I ignored most of them or just addressed them in passing. I wanted to respond to the slave part that Pat brought up by saying that Romans 6 says that Christians are "slaves to righteousness". If Pat is correct in saying that "slaves to sin" means no ability to do right or choose right, then "slaves to righteousness" must mean no ability to do wrong. But, we ALL know that is not true and most Calvinists say that Christians "sin everyday", so they definitely know that's not true...
|
|