Calvinists, answer this one for me.

You should conclude that simple childlike faith is necessary for salvation. You should not conclude that dumb faith (i.e., gullibility) is the same thing.

No that is not my position. My position is that Christ is making the point that children are characterized by simple, whole-hearted trust, and if someone is going to have eternal life, they must have simple, whole-hearted faith.

This is pure contradiction Larry.</font>[/QUOTE]No it isn't. YOu confuse man's natural state with his hardened state. The Bible explicit tells us that natural man cannot hear (i.e., understand) the things about God and salvation. THat is not the same as hardening.

Man is not born hardened. They are born unable to understand because of their sin nature.

But you err by not understanding what we are saying. Understanding at a surface level that God exists is not the same as understanding at a heart level that an individual (me) needs to submit to him as Savior. They understand the truth; they do not "understand" to apply it to themselves. John 8 is a perfect example of this, as is Rom 8. These passages clearly describe people who understand the words that the gospel is communicated in; they do not apply it to themselves. They choose to trust something else.

This is true. My point is that you have already taken clear passages regarding this and made them to mean someething entirely different than I believe honest objectivity in context will allow. I don't understand how you can reach your conclusions on the basis of the text. As I have often said, however, if you in good conscience can do that, then have at it. I simply do not understand it. To me it becomes more and more plain everytime I cross one of these passages in its context.

They weren't. To be born dead in sin is different than being born hardened.

I would suggest you are missing the point. Christ's point is the "type" of faith -- i.e., simple wholehearted faith. You are talking about the accomplishment of faith. Faith does save. But Christ is not addressing that point. He is addressing the nature of the faith that saves.

 

I am neither Calvinist or Arminianist either.

Skandleon,

Pastor Larry is right. Larry says,

I agree with Pastor Larry. we were not born with hardened, individual later become hardened because of their freewill decision.

Also, Larry says,

Yes, he is correct.

Look to 1 Cor. 2:14 "But the NATURAL man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they spiritually discerned."

It tells us, the natural man cannot understand the spiritual things, because the natural man is lost and not saved, cannot understand the spiritual things. That why John 3:3 & 7 tells us, that person MUST be born again, OR, cannot see(understand) the kingdom of God. When a person born again, then will able understand the spiritual things.


Skandelon,

Yes, you are right. I agree with you.

Larry,

I disagree.

Romans 1:20 - God revealed the creation to us as sinners, that we can see the things that God created, it is no excuse for any sinners include athiests to KNOW better than that, sinners and athiests KNOW there is God, but they deny God's holy, they want to stay in wicked ways and their heart hardened - Romans 1:21.

Every person do have ability to trust or believe on Jesus Christ when after hear the gospel. God gives us the choice to make decision to accept or reject God's love offering - Jesus Christ. God cannot force us to make decision to choice, God does not make us robot to make decision. God gaves us freewill decision.

John 3:16 & 3:36 clearly tells us, that we have choice to make decision to believe Christ or rject Christ.

In Christ
Rev. 22:20 - Amen!

 

Pastor Larry,

It seems you cannot think things through. Grace is an attribute of God that he exhibits to whom He does. Grace is not a transferrable commodity. Therefore, while God is behaving toward mankind in accordance with HIS grace, the only thing that humanity can do is respond to God's gracious behavior. There is no grace transferred from God to man. There is no grace received by man from God. It is a matter of behavior. It is God establishing the environment conducive to man to hear God's word and believe in Him. NO man can stand up to God's wrath and become a believer. It is only while God is extending His grace to man that belief can come to man.

When James said God gives us grace, he is saying that God is behaving toward us in accordance with HIS grace. It is up to us to respond to God's behavior and hear HIS word and believe in HIM, or face the consequence of not doing so.

You cannot give me any of the grace that God "gave to" you because no grace transferred ownership from God to you. All mankind can do is bask in the grace of God as one basks in the sun. It is while God is behaving in accordance with his grace that mankind can do good works, or evil works, for God truly allows man to operate within the domain that God established for man. We are free agents within that domain. It is under grace that we can make the choices that determine our eternal destiny. Yes, we each determine our own eternity while God's grace prevails.

That is why Parents are instructed to "bring up their children in the way they should go, and they will not soon depart from it". Parents play a most important part in whether or not their children seek after God! The innocent, in every way, child is like a spongue caring not what liquid is present, it will soak up whatever is it given. The parent is responsible for providing Holy Water for the child to absorb and live. For if not, the child will absorb "unholy water" and die.

I trust that I have made it clearer for you to understand.

 

I disagree.

Romans 1:20 - God revealed the creation to us as sinners, that we can see the things that God created, it is no excuse for any sinners include athiests to KNOW better than that, sinners and athiests KNOW there is God, but they deny God's holy, they want to stay in wicked ways and their heart hardened - Romans 1:21. </font>[/QUOTE]I agree. That is what I said above. But their "understanding" does not apply that message to themselves. They do not understand that they should apply that message to themselves.

And that freewill is always subject to the nature of the individual. They have a sin nature. Therefore, their free choice will always be to reject the gospel until God gives them a new nature. God doesn't force anyone to make a decision. They do it freely and volunatarily, according to their nature.

[ March 02, 2004, 12:00 PM: Message edited by: Pastor Larry ]

 

If you read chapter 1-2, you cannot avoid the fact that he is talking about the gospel. And he specifically references why Christ was crucified ... they didn't understand that they were accomplishing God's plan. 1 Cor 2 is a very clear passage on the inability of "natural" man to understand. Natural men are unsaved. 1 Cor 3 is the beginning of a transition to talk about spiritual maturity.

 

Hardly. My ability to think things through has enabled me to see that you are not making sense, and in fact, are denying the explcit statements of SCritpure.

Scriptures tells us otherwise. And your answer to one of the passages that explicitly said so is "It really doesn't mean what it says." My question is, Then why did God say it?? If he really meant something else, why didn't he say something else??

If this is what your last post was saying, then yes, you made that clearer. But in reality, you have not clarified how you can possibly support your view from Scripture. Scripture just doesn't say what you say.

 

Let me just hit a couple of points in winding my participation here down. Once again, we are being repetitive and my time constraints lead me to other priorities.

First, with respect to semantics, it is not semantics in the least. A child stands on the counter and dad extends his arms. The child jumps in simple trust that dad will catch him. That is not gullibility in the least. It is simple faith but well placed faith. The child did not try to keep on foot on the counter just in case ... he jumped with full confidence that dad would catch him. He wasn't analyzing the ins and outs of gravity and aerodynamics. That is the kind of childlike trust that Christ is referring to.

ON this topic, Christ uses a spiritually dead person to illustrate because of the physical charateristics. He does this often, though parables, using material things of this world to illustrate spiritual truth. That is what the analogy is. You are trying to read way too much into the analogy.

A child can believe his father will catch him. A child will not believe that Christ is the Lord and Savior until he has a nature that allows him to believe that. You have to remember that choices are in accordance with the nature. And you cannot (as you did in your last post) confuse spiritual nature (old vs. new) with emotional nature (child vs. adult). Once again, you confuse terms and draw invalid conclusions.

Again, remember Christ is using the child as an illustration about the type of faith, not the object of faith. A child can believe many things. That doesn't mean that all of his beliefs have valid objects (i.e., Santa Claus). Christ is not talkign about the object, but rather than nature of belief. This will be a distinction you will have wrestle through to be able to make sense of it. But trust me, it is there and it is a valid and vital distinction. Almost all of your posts about this topic to date have ignored this distinction and in so doing have accused me of being contradictory when in fact I am not being contradictory. I am making distinctions based in the whole truth of Scripture that you are not making.

You ask, Which is it? Can children trust in Christ or not? If not, why would Christ use them as examples? If so, why do you believe in Total Depravity? The answer is still the same as it was the first time. Children cannot believe in Christ apart from the unilateral work of the Holy Spirit. Christ uses them because of the nature of childlike faith, not the object of their faith. I believe in total depravity because Scripture teaches it. This passage has nothing to do with it.

Second, with respect to hardening, hardening is a difficult subject no matter which side you are on. I don't have all the answers. What I know is that I am lot more comfortable nuancing hardening becuase it is not as clear, than I am denying the things that are clear. God very clearly hardened Israel and I take that to be the same as with Pharoah (which I just read this morning). It increased the already deserved punishment. There may be an element of hardening of contemporaneous Jews that prevented a purely political acceptance of Christ that would not have been a spiritual acceptance. That answer won't satisfy you. It doesn't entirely satisfy me. But again, the relative clarity of the doctrine of salvation vs. the relative obscurity of the doctrine of hardening leads me in good conscience not to deny the former in favor or the latter. I simply cannot take an explicit teaching and deny it in order to justify my position on a more obscure teaching. I think it can be worked out without a great tension.

Thirdly, with respect to understanding, unsaved man can understand the propositional truths of God and the gospel. In John 8, the conversation is about accepting Christ as the Son of God. In other words, it is about salvation. Christ told them, you cannot hear, not because they were deaf, but because your understanding was limited because of who your father is. That was not a Jewish problem, it is a human problem. Therefore, we cannot limit the inability to understand to Jews. Notice he did not say, "You cannot understand because you are hardened." He said, "You cannot understand because your father is the devil." This removes the problem from Judaism and places it in all whose father is the devil. This plainly testifies that all whose father is the devil cannot understand the message of Christ in a way that leads them to respond to it favorably in belief. They understand its content, not its significance, and they reject it because of their father. In John 8, the problem is not their Jewishness. V. 44 tells us that their problem is their spiritual father. People can understand the truths about God and Christ; they will not submit to it because they do not understand their true condition. I think you are confused by the way in which you are using "understand" vis a vis the way it is typically used in this discussion and in Scripture.

I will likely bow out here because of time and priorities. Have fun ...

 

I will only make this comment. I have no disdain for you in the least and I have long ago reconciled these issues with Scripture. I am not confused in the least about what Scripture teaches. I am confused by how you can get your position from Scripture. But as I say, if in your conscience you can do that, then that is between you and God. I left your position because of what I found in Scripture. Then I began to read other things and found out that what I believed was indeed supported by other commenting on Scripture. I lost a position in a church, in part, due to fact that I began to understand the doctrines of election. For a time, I backed away from it but in reading and studying, I could find no other solution.

I am not ignorant in the least of the doctrine of hardening, nor have I denied it in the least. That was a completely unfounded statement. What I said was that I could not deny the SCripture teaching about the nature of man to work my position about hardening in. That is what I believe you have done. You don't see how a totally depraved person can be hardened so you say he wasn't really totally depraved. But to hold that position, you have to nuance some passages of Scripture in ways I am not able in good conscience to do. But as I said, hardening is a problem no matter which position you hold. Your position on hardening is not any better than mine is. You simply have to overlook some more explicit teachings about the nature of man. However, we will not agree on that. I simply encourage you to renew your Bible study on this issue.

I think it is safe to say that you are not going to come up with any Scriptures or any ideas that I have not dealt with. I am not going to disappear and I am not running from it. I dealt with it long ago. I am not worried in the least about it. As Solomon said long ago, there is nothing new under the sun. The same old objections get brought up and the answers are still the same ...

 

My friend, with all due respect, you do not read critically to see what someone is saying. To say that I konw what the Bible teaches about a particular subject is not the same thing as saying I have all the answer. You put a little pressure on me to pursue these things?? Man, I have been pursuing these things for much longer than you have been here. I pursued the doctrine of hardening for quite a while. I am not confused about it. I think you are confused because you use it to contradict other doctrines. Just remember, not having all the answers (which you should be admitting) is not the same as not understanding.

First, I did not claim it to be obscure per se. Again, your failure to read closely and critically cause you to miss the words "relative obscurity of the doctrine of hardening." Compared to the doctrine of salvation which is explicitly clear, the doctrine of hardening is relatively obscure. That should not be a secret to anyone.

Secondly, I haven't ignored it in teh least. I simply am not going to invest the time to engage is a long drawn out conversation with someone who is in no position to be convinced. It simply is not worth mytime.

Thirdly, I have dealt with it. This conversation has come up many times and in the past 8193 posts, I addressed it. Sorry that you cannot find it and sorry that you were not here when it was discussed numerous other times. If others want to address it, then so be it. I simply do not have time.

Unless you have new revelation from God, you are not going to come up with anything new. That is not prideful. It is a statement of fact. I am familiar with just about everything argument on either side of this discussion. You say you think you came up with something I haven't dealt with. Tell me what it is. It cannot be hardening because I did deal with that. It cannot be Acts 28 because I did deal with that. The fact that you do not agree with my explanations or did not see where I dealt with it does not mean that I haven't dealt with it. It means that you didn't agree with me or you didn't see it.

I am able and have been willing in the past. I am not willing now because 1) I do not have time to engage in a lengthy discussion and 2) you are not prepared to accept any evidence that is contrary to your firmly held position.

What is revealing is how much you will overlook in my words to try to make your point. What is revealing is that now you have chosen once again to go after me. Deal with the doctrines. I am very dissatisfied with the almost non-existent attempt you have made to deal with the scriptural teaching on the nature of man. You have resorted to changing definitions and appealing to the doctrine of hardening to support your view. That is simply inadequate. You want to jump on me for "not addressing" your issues (when in fact I have). Why not jump on yourself for not addressing the other issues? Why let yourself off the hook so easily?

The fact is that in my time on this board, I have shied away from no conversation. If anything, I have been guilty of pushing to get the last word. I have dealt with every single thing that has been brought up. When you get 7500 more posts, then you will have almost as many as I have. And then you will likely have said things that other people can't find. That won't mean you haven't said them.

In your desire to pin me down, hold yourself to the same standard. Force yourself to deal with passages for what they actually say. Do not be guilty of nuancing the Scriptures to fit your system. Ditch your system and deal with the Scriptures.

 

Larry, if you are taking the scriptures literally it is no wonder that we cannot agree.

The Scripture were written for men in man's condition, not for God in God's condition.

Scripture must be weighed carefully in the arena of all the knowledge that wise men have about man.

If God gives grace where is it? There should be something visible and tangible that is given so that men can see it, touch it, smell it, taste it and hear it, so as to be able to recogize it for what it is. Man cannot, through the senses that God gave to mankind, hear, see, smell, touch, or taste spirit, or any of the attributes and essences of spirit, but he made each man to be spirit in a physical body. Therefore, the only means of knowing of God's grace is through the spirit. The human spirit responds to God's spirit so that while God shows his favor toward man, man responds to God's grace.

For example God gave his only begotten son, a God-man who walked among men. James says that God gave his grace. Well isn't Jesus called the gift of grace? If Jesus is a gift of grace, what is grace? Is it not the behavior of the one giving the gift? Paul says "for by grace are ye saved, and that not of yourselves it is a gift of God..." If Jesus is the gift of grace, and salvation is a gift of grace, what is grace? Can you pick it up in your hand? Smell it? Taste it? See it? Hear it?

Our very lives are a gift of God's grace, because at our first sin, he could have snuffed out our life as payment of the penalty of sin. What is Grace? Is it a transferable commodity? or will you agree that it is a behavioral attribute of the one possessing it?

 

Yes, disagreement on the source of theology will always cause problems. I simply choose to believe that the God who cannot lie said what he meant. You should do the same or refrain from calling yourself a Christian.

But they were inspired by teh God who cannot lie. Therefore, they are true and they reveal God and his truth to us.

It is found in salvation, in times of trial where grace sustains us, in times of temptation where grace enables us to do right. Grace is seen all over and its effects are tangible. It is a matter of God's revelation to us.

 

And I have. The explanations are available all over the place. They can be found in many good commentaries, all of which will devote more studied effort to the answer then most here will. A forum like this, at times, tends to become pooled ignorance where every one offers their opinions without any real support.

I do respond to people who will not be convinced. But I do not do it forever. I make my points as I have time and then I withdraw. It is not worth my time to do otherwise. I use to respond a lot more than I do now. I simply will not take the time for it now.

I have interacted with you on this many times, as I have with KJVOs and other arminians.

Actually, I have answers for a lot of things that I never post. I simply don't have the time and don't have the desire to take the time to do it. I have priorities that don't include arguing with arminians about whether God is God or not.

It has been a very long time since there was anything new in this forum. I have in fact learned quite a bit here over the last couple of years. And for quite a while, it has been a repeat. There may be something new. You haven't posted it yet. That is all I am saying.

It reveals to me that you are not willing to accept any answer. I have extreme objectivity. I have admitted where there are weaknesses. I have no axe to grind. I really don't care. In the time I have interacted with you (cf your accusation above that I did not interact with you), you are right, I could have posted it. But it would have made no difference to you. You are not willing to be convinced. You have demonstrated through your rejection of Scriptures here already that you are not able to be convinced. That is fine ... you and I view Scripture a different way. Are you willing to change?

I think you need to do a little more work on this assertion. I am not taking a lot of time here or anywhere else on this board.

Actually there are, and I have had conversations with them.

No you haven't. Your "dealing with" will not pass muster with anyone who has knowledge of the text. You simply say "It doesn't really mean that." You said that John 8 is not about salvation. How could you seriously say that? That is inconceivable to me. Read John 8, beginning at v. 30 or so and you will see very clearly that the issue is salvation. That is what "being free through the truth" and accepting Jesus as the son of God rather than an illegitimate fraud is all about. It is salvation. That alone told me you are not willing to deal with the text.

Skan, 8200 posts ... I have not avoided it. I don't know whether I can prove it or not. I know I did it. If you think I am not telling the truth, then that is your problem. I don't know how to answer that. After a while, things do get archived here.

Then start with the load of Scripture on Total Depravity that you dismissed with a wave of the hand.

I didn't resort to nonsense. I dealt with the questions before. I believe the last guy to try this Acts 28 was a guy named Brother Bill. It didn't work then either. I don't remember how long ago that was. I dealt with it.

As the text God has given us is my witness, I don't see how you can say this. But if you, in good conscience, can believe that, then that is fine. But don't come in here and make accusations against me.

You are wrong in suggesting that Total Depravity is not taught in Scripture. We have shown verse after verse that describes the nature of man. I have not seen you deal with them.

You are wrong in your approach to the analogy fo the child, which is what this thread was about.

Acts 28 simply put, is about the church vs. the Jews. There is a longer explanation, but I am not going to take time right now to give it.

Quite frankly, Skan, you have not shown much of a willingness to learn anything. You asked a question here, got the same answer from several different people from both sides, and then proceed to question why we don't agree with you. When people from both sides give the same answer, shouldn't that be enough? Or are you too dedicated to your position to change it??

In the end, as before, we will not agree. How much time is it worth? Not a whole lot to me. I have already spent way too much time trying to explain to you where I am coming from hoping to keep the tension and misunderstanding to a minimum. That obviously hasn't worked, seeing that you have launched into all kinds of accusations against me. I wish it would be different.

 

How long do you think it took me to type that??