_______
ROBERT 5.08.2011 1:01AM
Continuing "God's Will / Man's Will," and responding to Phil's recent scriptural assertions. Here is a Table of Contents of most of our scriptural arguments pertaining to "God's Will / Man's Will."
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
[CONTENTS + ROMANS 3:10/11]
Hey Phil,
Circumstances require another long letter, and facebook requires me to split it into who knows how many parts. So this time, I'm just going to send separate messages for each topic, but all under the same thread, “God's Will / Man's Will.”
I was going to make a Table of Contents, but I can't know how many topics facebook will allow me to squeeze into each message. So here are the topics to follow; see the top of each one for what each topic is.
ROMANS 3:10 (actually 3:11)
ROMANS 9:19 (and all of Romans 9-11)
THESSALONIANS 1:3
EPHESIANS 2:8
GALATIANS 2:16
JOHN 17:9
JOHN 3:16, CONTINUED
OTHER VERSES
CLOSING REMARKS & REQUESTS
So here I go responding to your verese and interpretations, starting with...
ROMANS 3:11
You said:
“there is no one who understands, no one who seeks God.”
You apparently want to argue that “no one seeks God” except for the saved. I mean there's got to be SOMEBODY who seeks God, since there are countless “seek and find” verses in the Bible as you well know: Deut. 4:29; 1 Ch. 28:9; 2 Ch. 7:14; 15:2; Psalm 9:10; 22:26; 34:10; 69:32; Isaiah 45:19-22 (Isa. 45:22 led Spurgeon to salvation in a Primitive Methodist church); Isa. 55:6; Jer. 29:13, etc. So I am guessing that you, like so many Calvinists, believe that “seeking God is the job of the Christian,” not the job of the unsaved, because the unsaved can't seek him because they are zombies.
I find the following problems with the above conclusion:
The language of Romans 3:11 never distinguishes between “seeking before” and “seeking after” salvation, but simply leaves it as “seeks.” If one takes the verse perfectly literally, then literally “no one” seeks him, not even AFTER salvation, because it doesn't verbally allow for an exception. But we both know that an exception must exist somewhere. But where? Here are three possibilities:
(A) No one seeks God EXCEPT after salvation;
(B) No one seeks God unto salvation EXCEPT the few who do, all in keeping with biblical reality of overstatement, exaggeration, and hyperbole; or
(C) No one seeks God EXCEPT imperfectly and part-time.
Options “B” and “C” are perfectly reasonable exceptions.
Option “B” thrives on the fact that Romans 2:7 already based “eternal life” on “seeking” it, and many of the above examples say that those who seek him [with all their heart] will “find him” (Deut. 4:29; Acts 17:27), or “find me” (Jer. 29:13); or “find life” (Prov. 8:17,35); or just “find” (Matt. 7:7). “B” also survives criticism for being nonliteral, because many Bible verses similarly overstate the truth just for dramatic effect (Matt. 23:24; Mark 9:23b; Luke 14:26; John 12:19; 21:25, etc.).
Option “C” can conceivably apply to the saved or the unsaved. It's only concern would be that the people's sin and imperfection are frustrating to God. No one is perfect! “For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus” (Rom. 3:23-34). Since 3:11 is followed by 3:23-34, Paul is probably saying, “No one is sinless, so they ALL need a Savior, both Jews and Gentiles.” ((And for what it's worth, 3:23-24 sounds rather optimistic about how “all” people both “have sinned” and “are justified freely by his grace,” or at least can be, kind of like Rom. 5:18 and 11:32.))
Option “A,” however, suffers from: (1) Failure to demonstrate that Romans 3:11 targets precisely the unsaved as not seeking God; and (2) Failure to explain away verses that actually do teach that seeking God results in “eternal life” (Rom. 2:7), “finding the LORD” (Deut 4:29), being “forgiven” (2 Ch 7:14) and not “forsaken” (1 Ch 28:9), etc. Simply put, Romans 3:11 provides zero protection against the force and clarity of the verses I provided on May 2.
__________
Up next: Romans 9:19, along with all of Romans 9-11.
_______
ROBERT 5.08.2011 1:03AM
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
[ROMANS 9:19 + all of Romans 9-11]
You said:
“therefore God tells us , You will say God is unfair for who has resisted his will then, Romans 9:19 ”
I don't know if you were trying to quote the verse from memory, or were blending in verse 14, or were giving your interpretation of how you think I consider God to be unfair. The verse says: “One of you will say to me: 'Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?'” It says nothing about accusing God of being unfair. (For what it's worth, however, I have heard some Calvinists say, “God is not fair, he's just.”)
I addressed this earlier. I will say a little more on Romans 9-11 (including 9:19):
Romans 9
9:1-5 – Paul asks the question of why the Jews are so missing out on the salvation they so looked forward to in the coming of the Messiah. They thought they were so entitled to salvation, for “...theirs is the adoption... glory... covenants... law... worship... promises... etc.” (9:4). The topic opens by stating it's concern about the nation of Israel at large, not about all human individuals. This is important to remember.
Romans 9:6-29 uses lots of OT personages as analogies to prove that God is controlling a great deal of Jewish history.
9:7 – God decided the main descendants would be through Isaac, not Ishmael. Nothing personal against Ishmael, but he symbolizes man trying to help God keep his promise, and that just wouldn't play well with God's stated plan. Ishmael can have blessings, but not the main role (Gen. 21:12-13).
9:12 – “The elder would serve the younger,” which had nothing to do with eternal destinies, but God's redemptive, symbolic history.
9:13 – “...Esau I hated,” again had nothing to do with salvation, and God's “hate” was simply that he “turned his mountains into a wasteland” (Mal. 1:2-3).
9:14 – “Is God unjust?” No, and I'll let you know when I think otherwise.
9:15 – God said, “I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy,” and he originally said it to Moses, and in the Ex. 33 passage, it seems to concern itself only with blessings given out specially to Moses. Blessings, like revealing himself mightily, not saving him to the exclusion of all people, or even all Israel.
9:16 – It depends on God's mercy. WHAT does, exactly? Special revealings from God? Not eternal life; context is still concerned with the nation of Israel.
9:17 – What was God's purpose in hardening Pharaoh? To damn him by his sovereign will and pleasure? No, rather to “display his power...that his name might be proclaimed in all the earth.” Maybe God gave Pharaoh an opportunity to be saved before the hardening (an opportunity which he may have rejected, bringing swift destruction upon himself). Or maybe God gave Pharaoh an opportunity AFTER getting hardened (perhaps God released him from the mind-control and gave him grace to repent before dying). Even hardened people can still be saved, as we will see (11:23, 32).
9:19 – “One of you will say to me: 'Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?'” Up to this point in the chapter, there is nothing to suggest this to be the cry of someone who dislikes “the doctrine of election of individuals,” but it is more likely the cry of someone who either read to much bad news into Paul's words or else wishes that all the Jews would receive their Messiah like they've worked to hard for over the centuries (9:2-4). Someone wants either preferential treatment from God or an eternal reward for their hard work. But for such people who refused to leave the failing Jewish system, God elected to make it hard for them to become Christian; such people were resisting God's righteousness, so they therefore could not resist the consequences of being hardened.
9:20-21 – As a nation, God is using Israel like a pot, doing what he wants with, as in Jer. 18:4-6. (But even there he bases his actions on their rejection of him (18:7-23).)
9:24 – The entire chapter might be summarized by saying, “Salvation is not for ALL Jews and NO Gentiles, because God elected that it shouldn't be that way. Rather, God calls people 'not only from the Jews, but also from the Gentiles'.”
9:25-29 – These verses continue the point until Paul's interpretation of all that he has said, starting in verse 30.
9:30-33 – “What then shall we say?” That all men are predestined for life or death? That God controls every detail of history? No, simply that Gentiles got saved by faith, while Israel pursued their own works-righteousness and failed. Self-righteousness was their “stumbling stone,” over which any Jews who refused God's righteousness were destined to stumble. That's it.
OK, speeding things up a bit...
Romans 10
10:1 – Paul still desires their salvation.
10:8-10 – If nothing else, “the word of faith” is “near you... in your mouth and in your heart.” It is accessible. It is not distant and impossible to obtain. And it provides another guaranteed response by God to our choosing to believe and confess Jesus as Lord. The promise is justification and salvation. There is no way to explain this away, except possibly to declare that either: (1) their faith and confession were themselves predestined; or (2) this particular justification and salvation are temporal and subsequent to eternal rebirth; or (3) this does not actually deliver justification and salvation but only guarantees them to people who believe and confess, because they thereby prove they've already been saved (but even still, assurance would be ours, not to be threatened by tracts that say, “There is nothing you can do.”)
10:21 – “But concerning Israel he says, 'All day long I have held out my hands to a disobedient and obstinate people'.” That's no way to follow up Chapter 9 if Chapter 9 intended to justify a God who eternally elected not to have mercy on those obstinate people.
Romans 11
11:1-2 – God did not reject his people, at least not all of them. He let some be saved, like Paul for instance.
11:11 – They haven't fallen beyond recovery, at least as individuals.
11:14 – Paul seeks to get some of these “some” individuals saved.
11:23 – God is still able to save them.
11:25 – But there is still a “hardening” to reckon with.
11:28 – “As far as the gospel is concerned, they are enemies on your account; but as far as election is concerned, they are loved on account of the patriarchs.” They are enemies, apparently implying unsaved. But as far as “election” is concerned they are “beloved” (and I daresay “foreknown”? Verses 1-2?) on account of the patriarchs. God still seems interested in saving them, even though they are “hardened” (11:25). How is that possible?
11:32 – “For God has bound all men over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all.” What a relief! God has not eternally elected to deny mercy to them. It is no surprise that Paul bursts out with joyful doxology for the remaining four verses of the chapter (33-36).
In conclusion to Romans 9-11, I know that some verses feel very uncomfortable for those assuming God's universal saving will. But I think I have adequately demonstrated that the whole point of Romans 9-11 touches matters of national salvation rather than individual; that choice is inseparable from salvation at certain points; and that God's will, in spite of the hardening issues, is for the salvation of all, Jews and Gentiles. Therefore one needs better proof texts than these in order to rightly respond to my atonement and choice-and-consequence passages from May 2.
_________
Up next: 1 Thessalonians 1:3.
_______
ROBERT 5.08.2011 1:04AM
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
[1 THESSALONIANS 1:3]
You said:
“I Thes 1:3 Rembering without ceasing your work of faith....Our faith is a work we do.”
You found a verse with the phrase “your work of faith,” and have concluded that “Our faith is a work we do.” This is an invalid argument many times over.
First of all, you have taken “work of faith” to mean “faith that is a work.” You have given zero consideration to the fact that so many translations – by people who know Greek – render it “work produced by faith” (NIV) or “faithful work” (NLT). Even in that very same verse (1 Thess 1:3) the same thing holds true for the phrases “labor of love” and “patience of hope.” “Labor of love” means “labor from love” or “labor produced by love,” not “love that is a labor.” Likewise “patience of hope” means “patience from hope” or “patience produced by hope,” not “hope that is patience.” And why “from,” you ask? For the same reason Romans 3:22 speaks of “the righteousness of God” which means “righteousness from God” – a righteousness that comes by faith in Christ to all who believe. To whom? To all who believe in Christ. This leads to the second problem.
You then plastered this unsubstantiated definition over all the biblical instances of human faith, making it a matter of works all the time. To the contrary, God is “the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus” (Romans 3:26). God “justifies” – literally “makes righteous” – those who “believe in Jesus.” This “believing in Jesus” means “faith in Jesus,” and THIS IS NEVER A WORK BECAUSE IT GETS HIM JUSTIFIED, for “a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law” (Romans 3:28); and, “to the man who does not work but trusts [believes in / has faith in] God who justifies the wicked, his faith is credited as righteousness” (Romans 4:5). “His faith” is man's faith, regardless of how much God's prior graces enabled it.
You followed this closely with Ephesians 2:8, which follows next.
_______
ROBERT 5.08.2011 1:05AM
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
[EPHESIANS 2:8]
You said:
“So in Eph 2:8 we are saved by grace through faith that not of yourselves..... It is not our faith at all.”
As for Ephesians 2:8, there is a Greek grammar rule that almost completely rules out the possibility of “faith” being that which the word “this” points to in this verse, because their genders don't match. Yes, Greek words have genders, just like Spanish words. (In Spanish you could refer to a girl (chica) as “this one” by the feminine pronoun “esta,” but you would never say “este,” because that is masculine.) Likewise in Greek, “this” (touto) is neuter, while “faith” (pisteos) is feminine. Their genders don't match, so it is simply wrong to insist that “this” refers to “faith.” It basically can't, unless it is a rare and unlikely exception to the rule the likes of which do not clearly appear elsewhere in the NT. Such a dim possibility is no justification for using this verse to interpret away other scriptures with clearer teachings.
It is much more likely that “this” is a 'conceptual' thing, as is frequently the case elsewhere (I get that from a major Greek scholar, Daniel Wallace). As such it would simply refer to the fact or concept that “you are saved.” As such, the verse probably means that “you are saved, saved by God's grace through faith, NOT SAVED BY YOURSELF, not saved through works, so you can't boast.” (For further reading: http://www.faithalone.org/journal/1994i/J12-94c.htm#_ftn23)
But even if I go out on a limb and allow justifying “faith” to be “of God,” as in “a gift of God,” it would still be a “gift” that is “from him” and for us to practice in order to be justified (again, Romans 3 & 4); it would not be Christ's faith or faithfulness, regardless of what may be true about that.
And what is true about it? That topic is addressed in the next message, concerning Galatians 2:16, which follows.
_______
ROBERT 5.08.2011 1:07AM
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
[GALATIANS 2:16]
You said:
"The churches have failed once again, Galations 2:16 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ."
Earlier (4/22, msg 1) you said even more:
"...Gal 2:16 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law ( Work of faith I thes 1:3) but by the faith of Jesus Christ. This is a test God puts forth for the church in our day. Do we hold to our own faith in repenting or do we hold to the faith in Jesus Christ. In order to make the test even harder, most transaltions had wrongly put " Faith in Christ" but if you look at the greek you will see it is not " in " But is "of" Christ. ... So the translaters in the NIV and other newer bibles make it "in" because they want mans free will to rule over Gods will."
And so you argue that the “faith of Jesus Christ” is Christ's faith, not ours.
First of all, both your quotes of this verse were incomplete. Galatians 2:16 (KJV) continues: “...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.” Whatever you might think of “the faith of Christ,” WE STILL HAVE BELIEVED IN JESUS CHRIST THAT WE MIGHT BE JUSTIFIED. That should be one of my own choice-and-consequences verses. In fact, now it is, and I'd like to know what this means, Phil. Seriously, why would God speak of anyone believing in order to be justified?
As for “the faith of Jesus Christ,” it only concerns itself with the “trusting of Jesus Christ,” namely OUR trusting of Jesus Christ! That is why most versions translate it “faith in Jesus Christ,” because that's the same basic meaning.
This reality about “faith of Jesus Christ” or “faith of [blank]” exists elsewhere in the NT, even in the KJV:
Mark 11:22 – “Have faith IN God” (Literally: “have faith OF God”)
Acts 3:16 – “through faith IN his name” (Literally: “through THE faith OF his name”)
Galatians 3:26 – children of God “by faith in Christ Jesus” (Literally: by THE faith in Christ Jesus”)
The first and second of these translate “of” as “in,” even by the KJV, in order to make doctrinal sense of them. The second and third have the word “the” in front of “faith” in the Greek, but this word usually does not get translated because, well, it's another Greek thing. The bottom line is, Galatians 2:16 should have done likewise and left the “the” untranslated, so that “THE faith OF Jesus Christ” should be translated simply, “faith IN Jesus Christ.”
And in case you missed it, Galatians 3:26 actually does have “in” in the Greek (pisteos EN Christo Iesou – faith IN Christ Jesus).
And so does Ephesians 1:15 (pistin EN to kurio Iesou – faith IN the Lord Jesus).
And so does Colossians 1:4 (ten pistin hemon EN Christo Iesou – the faith of you [=your faith] IN Christ Jesus).
If you had some point to score in contending that “if you look at the greek you will see it is not 'in' But is 'of' Christ'” regarding Galatians 2:16, and that “newer bibles make it 'in' because they want mans free will to rule over Gods will',” then it seems that your point just backfired.
Back to the word “of.” First John's “the love of God” has even more to add to this discussion. It's like this: The “love of money” means “love FOR money.” The “love of the world” means “love FOR the world” (1 John 2:15). And the “love of God” is virtually defined as “love FOR God” in 1 John 5:3 (see also 1 John 2:5; 15; 3:17; 4:20 (“loves God” in 4:20 parallels “the love of God” in 3:17)). These do not refer to “money's love” or “the world's love.” Neither does Galatians 2:16 refer to “Christ's faith,” but “faith FOR/IN Jesus Christ,” which is echoed by the subsequent phrase “believed in Jesus Christ” in that very sentence.
With this in mind, it should be easy to see why Galatians 2:16 is translated “faith IN Jesus Christ” in almost every translation other than the KJV (which, itself, agrees with modern versions elsewhere as seen above).
Finally, Romans 3:22, 26; 4:5 bring it all together clearly:
(1) Romans 3:22 – God's righteousness comes “by faith of/in Christ TO ALL THAT BELIEVE.” That would be man's believing.
(2) Romans 3:26 – God is “the JUSTIFIER of him which believeth in Jesus (KJV) – literally “the justifier of the one of FAITH OF JESUS” (Greek). Even the KJV understands 'the faith of Jesus' as man's believing.
(3) Romans 4:5 – “But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.” “Worketh not” means it is NOT a work; “believeth” is man's believing; “justifieth” means eternal salvation; “his faith” is man's faith; and “his faith is counted for righteousness” means game over for your attempt to disprove God's justification through man's faith based on the Greek phrase “the faith of Jesus Christ.” I know reason must be gentle, but I only speak like this because you know I care about you and want you to be set free.
______
Up next: John 17:9 & John 3:16, maybe more...
_______
ROBERT 5.08.2011 1:07AM
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
[JOHN 17:9 + JOHN 3:16 + OTHER VERSES]
JOHN 17
You said:
"John 17:9 I PRAY FOR THEM; I PRAY NOT FOR THE WORLD, BUT FOR THEM WHICH THOU HAST GIVEN ME, FOR THEY ARE THINE."
A short answer is, So What if Jesus was not praying for the whole world at that moment? It was a special prayer for those who had been saved. He has already done enough for the world by committing to give his life for it. Which brings us back to John 3:16.
JOHN 3:16, CONTINUED
You said:
“whosoever does not mean anyone on earth, for there are none that seekth after God and Romans 3:10 contradict this verse if we are able to seek God in a saving faith.”
and later,
“Whosoever believeth in John 3:16, who can believeth? NONE. Believeth is a pronoun of the verb faith.”
First of all, 'believeth' is a verb and 'faith' is a noun. But yes, they are practically the same word.
Secondly, as demonstrated above, Romans 3:10/11 has no effect on this message because it does not concern itself to teach anything relevant to the interpretation of John 3:16.
Thirdly, you have turned this verse into nonsense. Salvation is for whoever believes, but alas! no one believes! Who would think up something like this? But it gets worse. So God has to go to a Plan B and simply zap people – but only some people – into salvation. God first wastes his time mentioning the opportunity the whole world has to gain eternal life, effective for whoever believes, while knowing that it benefit no one. Then he Calvinistically resorts to saving only some? What happened to his stated prior intent to “save the world” (3:17) because he “so loved the world” (3:16)? Was it just to taunt the unelect with a hypothetical offer through hypothetical faith of which no man, but only Christ, is capable?
Out of curiosity, is this how you would also interpret John 12:47 and 5:34? Would you admit that Jesus came to save “the world” of “man” who “rejects” him (12:47) and the Pharisees who just won't ever believe (5:34, 47)? Did he come to save them, but it turned out they weren't in his Father's plan, so he (practically speaking) came to die in vain for them, like something out of Calvin's commentary?
OTHER VERSES
You also said:
“Jesus said , I stand at the door and knock, He who hears my voice and opens the door I will come in and sup with him.
“God always gives us clues to his soverignty, here is the word 'Hear his voice' who can hear? No one unless God gives us ears to hear.
“Remeber how many times we read , To he that hath ears to hear, let him hear. THat is with spriritual ears that only God can give us.”
These “clues” you speak of are elusive and inconclusive. Those who hear his voice still need to open the door. Those who have ears to hear are still commanded to hear. Regardless of how Calvinistic the premise or assumption MAY be, the conclusion is always the same: they still need to respond. Grace is grace, and we still need to choose to receive it.
_____
Up next: Concluding Remarks and Requests
_______
ROBERT 5.08.2011 1:17AM
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
[CLOSING REMARKS AND REQUESTS]
You do not need to respond to much of what I wrote today, since it is mostly in response to what you wrote. While Romans 3:11 and 9:19 may have force, I think I have demonstrated that they lack clear direction against my verses and doctrines. I Thess. 1:3 does not define our faith a work, because our faith gets us justified. Ephesians 2:8 does not call “faith” a gift, due to gender mismatch; “salvation by grace” is the gift, and even if faith were conceptually rolled into this gift it would still involve responsibility. Galatians 2:16 concerns itself with our faith in Jesus Christ, bottom line, and the part you left off confirms that, as do all those Romans verses. John 17:9 was a special prayer. Jesus DIED for the world; that should be enough for them. The remaining verses simply did nothing to eliminate the responsibility of those with “ears to hear” to proceed to respond appropriately. “Clues”? More on that later, perhaps.
But what about my verses? I want some answers regarding my verses and interpretations from May 2. Look, I will limit this request to eight passages - six from May 2 plus two from today: John 12:47; John 5:34; 2 Peter 2:1; Acts 2:40, Acts 5:32; Acts 16:31 (six interpretations provided May 2); as well as Galatians 2:16 (starting from “even we have believed...”); and Romans 4:5 (both interpretations provided earlier today).
My verses and explanations deserve DIRECT TREATMENT, and not just diversion to your verses and theological conclusions. There is a place for those, but I have responded to them. Avoiding “contradictions” is no excuse to maintain your bias if my verses are harder to explain away than yours. “Clearer scriptures must interpret less clear scriptures.” (A modification of a scriptural interpretation principle.)
When pagans challenge the hope that we have, we must have a ready answer. How much more so when scripture itself challenges our hope! Also 2 Tim. 3:16 and 1 Cor. 8:2.
Eight passages and interpretations, directly addressed by you. That's all I ask. Thank you, and may God bless you. -Robert
_______
PHIL 5.08.2011 4:51PM
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
In John 12:47 I guess you are saying God wants the whole world to be saved and that this verse leads to mans choice or responsibility?
Please read John 12:40 He blinded thier eyes and hardened their heart.
Now we have a clear contradiction if you believe in free will, choice, or mans responsibiblity. With Election we do not have a problem as God is in control of those who will hear his voice and follow him, because God opens their eyes to see the word, and God had mercy on them to give them a new heart to believe.
In verse 12:48 also clearly says that He that rejecteth me, ( that is all men, every single person on earth Romans 3:10 there is none that seeketh after God) and recieveth not my words, ( again that is everyone ever born after Adam and Eve) hath one that judgeth him....the Word will Judge them, which is God , which is Jesus.
John 5:34 ye were willing for a season to rejoice in his light. THis is the same as those who in the days of the Exodus, say the miracles of God, seem to believe for a little while , they ate bread in the desert, gone through the sea on dry land, saw the plagues in Egypt yet they died in the wilderness because of unbelief.
If it is up to my choice and responsibility, I too would fail as those Hebrews when Moses led them free from bondage. You see, God is faithful who began a work in us to complete it until that day.
II Peter 2:1, Here I will say that one of us is right, or both of us could also be wrong, but we both cannot be right. Vese 2 speak more clearer here, " By reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of. They have brought in damnable heresies, even Denying the Lord that brought them,...
This is a hard saying, telling all of us, warning us that we dont teach false doctines. Yet God allowed this in the Jewish Sinagogs in order to bring in the Lord Jesus Christ through the Jews.
In the same way God should have destroyed the Jewish nation, He should have destroyed all those who teach false doctrines, but God used the christian churches to take the true gospel ( the bible) to the whole world.
The church has been wrong form hundreds of years with the doctrines of Hell being a eternal lake of fire in which God keeps their soul alive in fire for eternity, that is forevermore.
The church teaches baptism and communion are sacraments when they are actually ceremonial laws just as cirumcision was ceremonial law and does nothing for us spiritually or physically.
God should have destroyed the churches long ago, but He allows it until all those elected before the foundation of the world will be born and God Save them.
_______
PHIL 5.08.2011 5:07PM
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
Acts 2:40 ...saying Save yourselves from this crooked generation. Now this is the problem here. You are isolating one verse and make a case from that as if man can save himself, which you know Eph 2:8 wont allow.
But if you read the previous verses Especially 39 right before God said ," For the promise is unto you and to your children. We should compare this with the children of promise with Abrahm with Issac the seed of promise and Ishmeal the seed of works, Sara and Abraham worked ( sinned ) to have Ishmeal, but in their old age had the child of promise which is a picture of Salvation comes from God not our works, trying to be responsible to have a child before we die.
Verse 39 also said," even as many as the Lord our God shall call. Again this clearly as daylight, shows God calls us unto himself. He called the deciples , he chose them, He elected them, he predestinatined them.
You are trying really hard to hold on to your choice and responsibility so you can have assurance of your salvation, but your trust should not be in your choice nor your responibility, it should be that Christ died for you, Christ is risen, God elected you, God Chose you, God did 100% the work of saving you.
Now that God has saved one from Hell, we out of a greatful heart for what he did to save us, we live for him, we repent, we believe, we have faith, but not because of our choice but because of His choice.
You see, election ( predestination) does not go with mans free will to chose, mans choice nor mans responsability. We believe , we love him because He first loved us. Only God can give us a new soul in which we never want to sin again, even though our flesh is weak and we still live in the flesh.
Once God has truely saved a man, if he is not responsible, God will chastise him, but if he is not saved, or he thinks he is saved and rebels, nothing will happen by chastisement, God even send them a strong delusion to believe a lie. Chastisment would bring the child of God closer to Him, while the unbeliever will indulge in sin and seem to get away with it.
_______
PHIL 5.08.2011 6:24PM
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
Acts 5:32, whom God hath given to them that obey him. I could not take a verse like this and say, I have a choice to obey him. God commands everyone to obey, but there are none that will obey, none that will believe, none that seeketh after God, they have all gove astray.
Now I understand you are trying to make a case by using several verses that seem to go along with mankind has the ability to obey, but the fact is again it contradicts the bible.
Romans 3:10 Ast it is written,
There is none righteous, no not one. There is none that understandeth, There is none that seeketh after God. They are all gone out of the way, they are togehter become unprofitable, there is none that doeth good, no not one. 10-12
Now how would we reconcile this with Acts 5:32? Is it not doing good to obey? is it not a righteous thing to obey God? Is it not a righteous thing to Chose God and make the right choice? Is it not a righteous thing to be responsible?
You see, God put these verses in as a test for man, just as he tested Adam and Eve who did have free will, choice and responsibility, but once they sinned, we are now born in sin. We are spiritually dead and cannot respond to God in a saving faith, Our righteousness is counted as filthy rags, the heart of man is desperately wicked, who can know it.
God has to intervine if anyone is to be saved, and if they are saved, it is because of His mercy and His grace alone.
Even though God said , faith is dead with out works, that is because if God elected to save a man, then He will believe, He will repent, He will seeketh after God inspite of Romans 3:10-12 because God saved him, but it did not come about by mans choice nor mans responsability. Salvation is always of God, To God be teh Glory! Never can man take even a small, small glory in doing anything in Salvation.
May God bless the reading of His word, I thank you for taking the time to write, I have read everything you wrote. Now all we can do is pray for each other and what should we pray?
Lord if you are willing that this man might be given more wisdon and understanding ..........ect, but not my will but Your perfect will be done, in Jesus name Amen.
God bless!
_______
ROBERT 5.10.2011 1:16PM
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
I sense that you are about ready to finish these discussions. So I will post some brief comments in closing.
John 12:47. I did not claim that “this verse leads to mans choice or responsibility,” but simply that Jesus came to save those who don’t get saved, thus defying limited atonement.
John 5:34. I similarly cited Jesus’ genuine intention that his hopelessly unsaved audience “should be saved.” You pasted verse 35, perhaps as a response that only confirms their hopeless unbelief, which I already asserted (48-50). This does not address the point I made about Jesus trying to save more than just “the elect.”
Acts 5:32. I did not contend that this verse proves that “I have a choice to obey him,” but only that a choice must be made prior to receiving the Holy Spirit, regardless of who’s controlling the choice. No obeying, no gift of the Spirit.
In each of these three passages, as well as others (like John 3:16), you depended heavily on two things: (1) that Romans 3:10-12 proves that literally no one seeks God, with apparently no exceptions; and (2) that this assumed fact gives you license to dogmatically interpret my verses without direct and respectful treatment. (1) I already explained better interpretations of Romans 3 in detail, and you did not respond to them. And again, (2) clearer scriptures must interpret less clear scriptures.
2 Peter 2:1. I wanted your opinion about how those he “bought” were those who “brought destruction on themselves.” Instead you wrote five paragraphs about false synagogues, hell heresies, sacraments, and damning judgments against “the churches.”
Acts 2:40. You immediately took this verse as a pretext to accuse me of “making a case from that…man can save himself,” and I knew you would. And Ephesians 2:8 does not get you out of this one, because I already explained Ephesians 2:8 in detail, how the noun genders don’t allow faith to be the gift, and that salvation is more likely the gift. Acts 2:40 gives enormous clarity that God’s salvation awaits our response - not works - just response. It is the word of God, after all, it can’t mean works. You know perfectly well that regardless of who is controlling their choice, it is a choice that must be made prior to salvation. The “calling” of verse 39 does nothing, for “many are called but few are chosen” (Matt. 24:14).
You did not respond to the other three of my eight final challenge verses:
"Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved--you and your household." (Acts 16:31). You can put up signs about Noah’s knowledge in Dubai, but I doubt you would preach this verse to people down the road.
“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 2:16 KJV). “Justified…by the faith of Christ” is paralleled and explained by “WE HAVE BELIEVED in Jesus Christ THAT we might be justified by the faith of Christ.” It really is our faith, our believing of Christ, our trusting of Christ.
“But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.” (Romans 4:5). Man’s faith - whatever its origins - is both separate from works and is counted as righteousness.
Thank you for these conversations. I learned about a great many scriptural gems I had not fully appreciated. I worked my brain to fast and long that I think I discovered a cure for Alzheimer’s. Serioulsy.
As an extra-credit comment: I discovered some things that might make you eat your hat after all. Harold Camping denies that Amram was the father of Moses and Aaron and then concludes that Amram died the same year as Aaron (Biblical Calendar of History, p. 3). But Amram was the father of both Aaron and Moses (Ex. 6:23; Num. 26:59; 1 Ch. 6:3; 23:13). And furthermore, Aaron was three years older than Moses (Exodus 7:7). Mr. Camping had it calculated to the day, but he is still off by about three years here. You don’t have to say anything to me about this. Just know that waffle cones make fine hats, and they’re much healthier.
Keep praying for me and I’ll pray for you and especially your boys.
-Robert
_______
End of Debate!
Thank you for reading.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
No comments:
Post a Comment