One of the differences between us and the Calvinists is that we really do believe Jesus when He spoke the words found in John 3:18. Calvinists deny this meaning; in fact they believe that God damns the majority and only autocratically saves His elect. Our Lord said, 'For God sent not His Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through Him might be saved.'
You would agree with me that God loved the Laodicean Church. But the Calvinists would deny that His love is extended to all of the lost ones. If He loves His church it is only truthful to say that He loves sinners, especially in light of John 3:18. Again, Jesus said, ' . . . God sent not His Son into the world to condemn the world . . . ' but actively loves the lost that through His blessed Name they might be saved.
Faith and trust in Him opens to us the Presence of the Holy Spirit in our lives. When we hear the general call of the Spirit and open the door of our lives to Him, He will not refuse our request of owning Jesus as personal Savior.
If anyone wishes to discuss this truth, please stay with the two Scriptures as noted above. I know well your dogma; I like it best to hear your interpretation of the Word.
grace or pure sovereignty?
Discussion in '2003 Archive' started by Aki, Feb 26, 2003.
Page 2 of 5
-
-
Ray, once again you have shown us your complete ignorance of what calvinist really believe.
-
-
That sounds very familiar to many of the debates by arminians in this board. Break it up explain them individually, then try to tape it back together even if it doesn't make sense that way, at least we can explain away what we don't like. Right? :rolleyes:
-
Not taking in the whole context of the Word was a nice 'hiding place' for you who do not have the Biblical answers. Again, we all can see that you refuse to stay with the Scripture that I asked you to please interpret. But we do understand your plight.
Was God incorrect to say in John 3:17 that He indeed did send His Son into the world not to condemn it but, through Christ, to save them? -
-
Ray, you asked
Was God incorrect to say in John 3:17 that He indeed did send His Son into the world not to condemn it but, through Christ, to save them?
No, God is never incorrect. You make it seem like calvinist throw this verse away? We don't, we rely on it as well as the rest of them. God came to save sinners, He came to appease the wrath of God so that God might rightfully show mercy. This verse speeks more about His mercy, being that if Christ did not die, it would just be another accusation against us. The Law spoke against us because it showed us that we were condemned, then Christ came and was obedient to the law, so now we have illiminated the curve, so to speak. But the intent of His coming was not to have another witness against us, it was to die so as to appease the wrath of God so that He (Jesus) might make Him (God) one who is just and one who justifies.
You see this verse does not go against calvinism. Unless you mean that the world means everyone in the world. But if you mean that Christ came to save everyone in the world, then everyone would be saved. We know that this is not true, so we know the verse means that He came to save those who are in the world, not the entire world. You see it as those who choose him, I see it as the elect. So this is not the last blow to our doctrine. It is no blow at all. -
This should make it obvious that these passages are not speaking of preterition or reprobation. God did npt say He had to save all, but then He did say to whom much is given, much is expected. Here you have people given nothing with everything expected of them.
-
Then what of Romans 3:??
There is no one righteous, not even one; "Righteous" is a condition requiring an ability. The lack of Righteousness does not correspondingly imply the lack of ability, but rather the wrong use of the ability. A vase has the ability to hold a bouquet of flowers, but if the vase is turned upside down, which is the wrong use of a vase, then it does not hold a boquet of flowers.
"there is no one who understands," Like Righteous, Understanding requires an ability. but lack thereof does not imply the ability is not there, but that is wrongly used.
"there is no one who seeks God." Seeking God requires is an ability to do so plus a desire to do so. One most definately has the abilility to seek whomever one wants to find, but without a desire to seek God, one will not do so.
"All have turned away, together they have become useless" Turning away definately requires ability to do so, and inherent ability to turn away clearly means the ability to turn is present in the one doing the turning.
"there is no one who does good, there is not even one." Doing anything requires the ability to do it, if one turns away from doing good, one turns to doing bad. So the ability to do is inherent in mankind but in Pauls illustration it appears that no one desires to do good so they do bad.
The bottom line is that man inherently has the ability to do, and to be, but chooses to use the God given ability for the wrong purposes. Satan has deceived mankind into neglecting God and all his silly rules for successful life in favor of doing and being what man finds "comfortable to live with".
Romans 3:?? simply does not support the concept that man does not have the ability. It does most definately support man's desire to use his God given abilities for the wrong purposes. -
Yelsew, righteousness is not a condition requiring ability, it is a position. That is where we are made righteous. It doesn't mean we have the ability to make ourself righteous. You jump to a big conclusion here.
-
-
Where does Paul do this, it is not Romans 3, read just before that it says that we are all condemned.
And you believe that man "most often does not meet God's standard of righteousness"? That is funny because scripture just stated right there that there is no man that is righteous.
Yelsew, you cannot actually believe that Paul is stating in Romans 3 that man has ability? That is the funniest thing I have seen in a while. Someone using Romans 3 to argue the fact that we have ability. Give me a break. -
sturgman;
I believe it's three post back
Romanbear -
here it is again for Sturgman's benefit
-
i appreciate all your replies to my post. and this time let me give mine.
to Ray Berrian:
look at it this way. when a man's head is cut off he dies. once dead, even if his heart is taken away from his body, that experience will not cause him his death, because he is already dead. true, when someone's heart is literally taken away, it will cause him his death. however, once dead for another reason, such experience will not cause death.
the same is true with the spiritual realm. once an individual is imputed of Adam's sin, he is dead. his personal sin will not cause him his death, because he is already dead. perhaps i should have explained further to you my statement that personal sins do not cause death. what i mean with that is not that those sins do not deserve death. rather what i mean is that they do not get anyone condemned because they already are.
to Eric B
yes we were imputed of Adam's sin! true, we did not commit it, but it was imputed upon us, just us Christ's righteousness would be imputed to those who believe - it was never our choice (though some bible commentaries will contend that we are actually guilty of commiting the first sin) - and it is in no way unjust nor unfair that God did it. rather, it is a magnificent product of God's genius, love, sovereignty, justice and righteousness! explanation comes later.
to Archangel:
we can always say that we are sinners because of our sins. however, before our own sins we are already condemned, and that was because of Adam's! in fact if someone should not commit a single sin all his life he is still dead because of Adam's sin. and to that effect, we actually sin because we are dead! we do not die because of our personally committed sins, rather we sin because we are dead!
to Pastor Larry:
true, there is nothing that requires God to offer salvation to any of us. but then what got us condemned? it is not our own free will to sin, for even before that we are condemned. it is because of the imputed sin of Adam which God sovereignly imputed upon us - even to the non-elect - without our free will. so then we got condemned without our free will but with God's sovereignty. therefore, if you will not disagree with what i just said, i believe your statement that: "God would be just in sending everyone to hell" should be "God would be sovereign enough in sending everyone to hell".
to Yelsew:
there are different interpretations of "dead" among bible-believers. some say that with God's general call no one will take heed and thus God give an effectual call with everything that's necessary to go with it. others say that upon conviction, though spiritually dead, man has the ability to choose for or against God. however, it is not the key issue in this topic. the issue really is that, for however you see "dead" you must ask yourself "what caused us such death"? was it ourselves? Adam's imputed sin? what?
i think the question that i see most critical for this topic is:
1. are we guilty of commiting the first sin? or was it simply sovereignly imputed to us by God? if so, wouldn't it mean that God is the one that caused us our death, for to whatever extent such death leads us?
2. if God imputed Adam's sin to everyone, what was God's purpose for doing that, specifically for the elect, for the non-elect, and for the human race as a whole?
[ February 28, 2003, 01:09 AM: Message edited by: Aki ] -
AKI,
[ February 28, 2003, 01:48 AM: Message edited by: Yelsew ] -
-
-
The Archangel Well-Known Member
Aki et al
This concept is seen in Hebrews 7. In this passage the author is telling of how the priesthood of Melchizedek is superior to the priesthood of Levi. He writes . 4 Now consider how great this man was, to whom even Abraham the patriarch gave a tenth of the plunder! 5 The sons of Levi who receive the priestly office have a commandment according to the law to collect a tenth from the people--that is, from their brothers--though they have also descended from Abraham. 6 But one without this lineage collected tithes from Abraham and blessed the one who had the promises. 7 Without a doubt, the inferior is blessed by the superior. 8 In the one case, men who will die receive tithes; but in the other case, Scripture testifies that he lives. 9 And in a sense Levi himself, who receives tithes, has paid tithes through Abraham, 10 for he was still within his forefather when Melchizedek met him.
Verse 10 is of high importance. It says that Levi paid tithes to Melchizedek! How is that possible. Levi was not born for some time! Besides, he was born of Jacob, Abraham's grandson. How can the great-grandson of someone do the same "action," as it were, as Abraham? Simple, as the Bible explains: Levi was still within his forefather when Melchizedek met him. Another translation, which I prefer, is that Levi was "Still in the loins" of Abraham...
This concept show the Federal imputation of sin from Adam to all his progeny.
This may seem like a bum deal! However, it is important to call it like it is. Why? Because the Federal Headship comes up again with Christ. This Adam-Christ distinction is VERY important to Biblical theology. (Note: This is why a Limited Atonement must be understood. I'll do more on that later.)
If we are human, Adam is our federal head. That leaves us in a boat-load of trouble. However, if we are Christians, we are under a different Federal Head. That is the Good news!
More to come...
Blessings,
Archangel -
Was Jesus condemned?
The sins of the Fathers do not condemn the sons!
Page 2 of 5