How can Division in the Body be repaired/prevented?

WooTang · 10-05-2002, 01:51 AM

(Luke)
"God regenerates people's minds and hearts, making them desire Him and desire Christ. But this does not presuppose that God works in every sinful mind (your view requires that God works in every sinful mind in an incomplete manner, and we finish the job. My view states that God works in some sinful minds in a complete manner, transforming them and making them alive to righteousness)."

(Wootang)
This is an incredible quote. With your permission, I'd like to use it on Sunday.

Travis · 10-05-2002, 08:34 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by hananiel
You can draw a horse to water [...but you can't make it drink]*.

Invalid comparison. God can do anything. And it it would be better compared to Him changing the mind of the horse and making him desire to drink, not making him.

*That was obviously implied.

Superman · 10-05-2002, 08:40 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Travis
Invalid comparison. God can do anything. And it it would be better compared to Him changing the mind of the horse and making him desire to drink, not making him.

*That was obviously implied.

Saying God can dop something so He must isnt the greates argument. God can make me grow 2 more arms or make everyone a saint, but He doesnt. Ability doesnt dictate action.

Luke · 10-05-2002, 11:48 AM

(Luke)
"God regenerates people's minds and hearts, making them desire Him and desire Christ. But this does not presuppose that God works in every sinful mind (your view requires that God works in every sinful mind in an incomplete manner, and we finish the job. My view states that God works in some sinful minds in a complete manner, transforming them and making them alive to righteousness)."

(Wootang)
This is an incredible quote. With your permission, I'd like to use it on Sunday.

(Luke)
Thanks! Permission Granted.

Luke · 10-05-2002, 12:41 PM

Here we go again...and yet again, this reply is split in half because of 20,000 chat limit (these posts are consistently being 27,000 characters)

(hananiel)
And would you say, like the neo-orthodox teachers who do not accept the Bible as objectively the Word of God, that it becomes the Word of God to individuals only as it affects them?

(Luke)
No, it is the Word of God regardless, they just don't listen to it. He author is attempting guilt by association here.

(hananiel)
The guilt is because of the same action as what you are committing. Its not by association. If it was said, Calvinists are going with neo-orthodox christians, so their(calvinist's) doctrine is wrong, then it would be.

So it is the word of God regard less. You dont have to impose greek literary devices, changed meaning of words from some propoganda to explain scripture.

(Luke)
First of all, let it be noted that we believe that the Word of God (in the original language) is the intrinsic and objective Word of God, unlike neo-orthodox theologians. The author's accusation carries no merit because it is not the same action (or even close). It is Calvinists who are actually most known for submitting all things to the final test of Scripture.

Second of all, it is the original text (in Hebrew and Greek) that is the Word of God. What you hold in your hand is an imperfect translation of God's Word. It is more than sufficient for purposes such as evangelism, Christian living, etc., but for purposes of theology, there are times when consultation of the original languages are necessary.

(hananiel)
The Word of God itself has supernatural power to affect the lost sinner, and it needs only to be "mixed with faith" (Heb. 4:9.) to save the sinner.

(Luke)
"There remains a Sabbath rest of the people of God" (Hebrews 4:9)

(hananiel)
sorry 12. For the word of God is living and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart. Again the missing ingredient is only faith. [/B]

(Luke)
There is no talk of a missing ingredient in Hebrews 4:12. The Word of God always achieves it's purpose, it's just that said purpose is not always salvation. And the missing ingredient you speak of shouldn't be faith anyway--it's an effectual call of the Holy Spirit. The Gospel is foolishness to those who are not called, but powerful and wise in the midns of those who are (Colossians 1:24).

(hananiel)
Christ did not die for all men, made no provision for them so they would possibly be saved. It really claims that God did not love all men enough to have Christ die for all, that His grace is limited, so is finite instead of infinite. But this is contradicted by many plain Scriptures.

a. John 3:16 says that "God so loved THE WORLD, that he gave his only begotten Son" -- that it was so that "whosoever" could believe on Him and be saved. No limited love or atonement in John 3:16!

(Luke)
God's loving the world does not presuppose that He will save everyone in it.

(hananiel)
He does imply wishing every one to it. 2 Peter 3:9 The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance. He cannot give the free gift of salvation to those who refuse to take it.

Like you said, I understand this is either to those predestined to be saved, or those already saved or he was sleeping while he said it or used a greek literary device.

(Luke)
There is no Greek literary device in use here, even a look at the English makes it clear what this verse means. Look at the passage in context. The question in view is, "Why has Christ not yet returned?" The answer: "Because God is patient with you, wanting all to come to repentance."

Does this mean every single person? No, it can't! If it did, then Christ would never return. Your interpretation of this verse keeps Christ from ever returning! Rather, I should point out that the verse itself restricts the meaning of "all" in the preceeding phrase: "he is patient with you, not wanting any [of you] to perish, but all [of you] to come to repentance." So, the question must be asked, who is "you"? The answer, as the context makes clear, is the church.

(hananiel)
b. In John 1:29 we read the inspired statenent of John the baptist about Jesus, "Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world," Since Christ atoned for "the sin of the world," not just part of the sin of the world, it could not be a limited atonement.

(Luke)
We are begging the question here...if the sins of everyone in the world is taken away, then why are not all saved? Everyone's sin is gone...there is no sin left to condemn anyone. "The world" (kosmos) does not mean every single person in this passage. It means Jews plus Gentiles. Interpreting it your way leads to universalism.

(hananiel)
It means Jews and Gentiles. Thats everyone even by your definition. The sin of the world has been taken away. Sin taken away doesnt imply saved. All who believe will be saved. Not all whose sin has been paid for. All are not saved because they continue, of their free will to submit to satans viles. Those who respond to God are delivered.

(Luke)
Wait a second, so you're saying someone whose sins are paid for are still condemned to hell? Why? They've done nothing wrong! I'm sure any reader with an ounce of common sense can look at your argument and tell it's hogwash.

As far as Gentiles plus Jews, this doesn't require every Gentile and every Jew. A subset would more than satisfy the meaning. Remember that we're dealing in a Jewish nationalistic culture where the fact that salvation was coming to Gentiles (not all Gentiles, just some) was a big deal.

(hananiel)
c. First John 2:2 plainly says, "And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for our's only, but also for the sins of the whole world." No limited atonement there!

(Luke)
Same thing. World means Gentiles plus Jews.While kosmos has multiple definitions (six total), the word "propitiation" (hilasmos) as only one definition--turning away God's wrath from the object.
So 1 John 2:2 says: "And he turned away God's wrath for us, and not for us only, but also for the whole world" If "whole world" here means every single person, everyone is saved. Wrong.

(hanaiel)
Again, every person is not saved. You scream universalism because, you assume propitiation for all sins, automatically implies reconciliation between man and God. Man has to believe, He has to take that free gift of salvation.

(Luke)
Why, if no sin is left? The only thing that separates us from God is our sin--without it we are not short of the glory of God (Romans 3:23). It is the wages of sin that is death (Romans 6:23). These problems don't exist if all sin is atoned for.

And propitiation is the actual turning away of God's wrath, so yes, it does speak of reconciliation. So, as previously stated, your view of this passage screams universalism all by itself.

(hananiel)
It clearly, without doubt says ALL. There were two classifications of people in that time (and biblically today). Jews and Gentiles. It doesnt mean no asians, caucasians, africans or no anybody. It is ALL. For everyone.And the only classification is those who believe.

(Luke)
"Gentile" includes Asian, Caucasian, African, etc.

And the fact that Gentiles were included does not require every Gentile to be included, nor does the fact that Jews are still included require every Jew to be included.

(hananiel)
d. Romans 5:20 says, "Where sin abounded, grace did much more abound." Does not that mean God has grace for all the sin in the world, and even a great surplus? So the total number of people who will ever be born on the earth is a finite counted number that God knows. But the grace of God is infinite, much more than for those who will be saved, even much more than for all the sins of all the people in the world, so says the plain Word of God. Romans 5:20 leaves no limit on the atonement

(Luke)
That grace is infinite does not presuppose that the atonement is unlimited in scope.

(hananiel)
I suppose to you africa can be both south and not south of europe. Like I said, If your deny logic, I cannot have debate. You change meanings of words, where it is all, its not all. Where it says one, its the opposite to you. What can I say.

(Luke)
That grace is infinite does not presuppose (or "require", if you prefer) that the atonement is unlimited in scope. Sin is infinite, and God has covered over an infinite amount of sin for a finite number of people. That's still infinite.

Prove my statement illogical if you like...and if you can

Of course, seeing as your preference isn't the final arbiter of logic, as much as you may like it to be...

(hananiel)
e. First Timothy 4:10 tells of "the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe." To those who believe, Christ is a special, personal, accepted Saviour. But to all who have not believed He is potentially and intentionally a Saviour. When God says in the Bible that He has provided a "Saviour of all men," what an arrogant wresting of Scriptures it is to say He did not provide and offer salvation for all!

(Luke)
Argument presupposes conclusion.

There are actually two possible explanations of this passage. I am going to argue for the one I feel is the more likely, which is that there is a Greek literary device in use here and only believers are in view.

If one rejects this, the other possible interpretation is that the way Christ is the Savior of all isn't by making redemption possible for all (which is false as I will show shortly) but because He secured forebearance (Romans 3:25) which would have been otherwise impossible.

(hananiel)
The premise is the conclusion.Its God word. I am not debating if God's word is true. There is one interpretation. If you do not use your greek devices, and frustrate your intelligence by arguing against what the word of God is saying.

Where it says all - there it means those predestined to be saved. Ok the strength of the argument noted.

But, what makes you think forebearance was impossible without propitiation. Is that a limitation of God. I can understand the Justice of God. He statuted that the wages of sin is death. And he met the cost. What about his forebearance. What do you guys worship??
God's forbearance needed Propitiation. You are maligning the very nature of God.

(Luke)
I don't think forebearance is impossible without the Cross, that's why I go with the first argument I gave. And Greek literary devices are objective and hardly frustrating to the intelligence. You're just upset because you can't disprove what I'm saying

And it doesn't mean "those predestined to be saved", it means "believers" (although those concepts are essentially the same).

And 1 Timothy 4:10 doesn't state your conclusion, so my original statement ("Argument presupposes conclusion") still stands. You have to prove that 1 Timothy 4:10 teaches what you say it teaches.

(hananiel)
f. Colossians 1:20 tells us that Christ, "having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself, by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven." Note that that verse speaks, not of all accepting Christ, but of atonement for all, amnesty offered every rebel, peace treaty prepared to end the war between God and the sinner. If Christ, "through the blood of his cross," intended "to reconcile all things unto himself," as that verse says, who dares put a limit on that atoning blood, so offered for all?

(Luke)
"all kinds of"

(hananiel)
sure! There is an interesting discussion going on in division of church thread about faith. You'll see what you are doing if you are not doing on purpose

(Luke)
This is the division of church thread (although it won't be much longer--I'm about to split said thread in half).

And I see you are making no attempt to disprove my interpretation.

I would also note that to say "every existing example of" would again be universalsim.

Have fun!

(Luke)
Both hananiel and myself here limit the atonement in some manner. I state that the atonement is limited in scope but effacious in power. In other words, the atonement actually secures salvation for all those for whom it was intended.
hananiel believes that the atonement is unlimited in scope but limited in power, such that it only makes salvation possible.

(hananiel)
Misrepresention. Unlimited in scope and power. The believer accepts the gift. The unbeliever tramples it. The power of salvation was available but unused, wasted in some.

(Luke)
Limited in power. It still only makes salvation possible. The atonement I believe in makes salvation actual.

(Luke)
It should be further noted that the silly argument the author made regarding finite grace v. infinite grace is a bad argument since he also limits the atonement (in fact, he limits the atonement in a much greater fashion than I do!)

(hananiel)
Vague generalities, and effected confidence, that warns me there is a major problem with this section. And you havent show how i limited any atonement

(Luke)
Your atonement makes salvation possible. My atonement secures saving grace for all whom it's intended. Your atonement could theoretically save no one. My atonement saves everyone who it was intended to save.

Luke · 10-05-2002, 12:41 PM

(Luke)
Lastly, one more thing regarding what Christ said about the scope of the atonement...
This is the Word of God:
"I am the good shepherd; the good shepherd lays down His life for the sheep" (John 10:11, NASB)
"But you do not believe, because you are not of my sheep." (John 10:26, NASB)
The implication made here is clear. The good shepherd (Christ) died for the sheep, a group which does not include everyone (since some of those whom Christ was talking to at the time were excluded)

(hananiel)
"But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye may know, and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him." Down the passage He was ofcourse mocking at them, because of their unbelief. How unchrist like. your verse talks about the work of the Holy Spirit in men, drawing them to christ. So indeed unless God draws them no one can be saved. But they havent been predestined to be saved like you would argue. You are sure about the different meaning of ALL that have to be assigned to make Calvinism come true, but you have no problem with the logical incongruities it causes

(Luke)
You have yet to show a logical incongruity! And how exactly does John 10:38 disprove what I said? It's completely unrelated to my point, which is that Christ didn't lay down His life for everyone.

(hananiel)
Irresistable Grace

All who are elected to be saved will be saved, that they cannot resist this special grace limited to them but will be saved when God calls. It would necessarily follow, first, that those not elected are irresistibly ****ed, cannot be saved; and, second, that since God works irresistibly to save or ****, Christians cannot affect the salvation or ****ation of sinners and need feel no responsibility or burden about it. But this is wrong, unscriptural, and no doubt Satan uses this doctrine of "Irresistible Grace" to lull Christians to disobedience and lack of compassion and burden to get people saved.

(Luke)
Everything he said here is true until the statement "need feel no responsibility...". We should evangelize because God has commanded it. And it is also worth nothing that Calvinism historically has not caused antinomianism as the author suggests.

(hananiel)
And can I ask (indeed I am afraid) why you feel a responsibility for something you have no chance of effecting the outcome of?

(Luke)
God commanded it.

(hananiel)
And what do you when you go evangelising? Do you preach or go fishing. Is there any reason why one is better than the other, since, your acts have no effect on being irresistably ****ed? Your God is commanding you to do something that has no effect?

(Luke)
God often uses His children to bring about the salvation of others, so certainly evangelism has an effect. And I strongly resent your implication on the "preach and go fishing" statement--thank you for insulting both myself and many of my friends, most of whom you have never met.

(hananiel)
Isnt it what it means to let go of the commands of God and are holding on to the traditions of men

(Luke)
Huh?

(hananiel)
a. In II Peter 3:9 we read, "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" Then God desires all men to be saved. And as we showed in section 1, all are enlightened to some degree, and called.

(Luke)
Poor hermeneutics. Only the elect are in view, as is stated IN THIS VERY VERSE.

(hananiel)
Yes I understand, the golden rule, that says, ALL is the ELECT. No, in EVERY verse that has all,except the ****ation verses. Again its by your preference, you can all them Calvinistic Hermenuetics if it pleases you. But that dont change the truth my friend. The Bible says what it means, so you are depriving of the power of God by saying, the sword of the Lord, needs hermenuetics to understand what is being said.

(Luke)
Actually, in every case I have given a reason why my interpretation must be accepted--usually by showing yours doesn't work. In this particular case, your interpretation keeps Christ from ever returning, which is an obvious absurdity.

You, on the other hand, have just said that you essentially don't like my interpretation, so to hell with it, as if that makes a bit of difference at all...

(hananiel)
There is a lady who probably wasnt educated beyond 9th grade. If you could only see how beautifully she explains scripture and understands, you will know as I did, that God did indeed choose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise.

(Luke)
Would you like some bread with your whine?

(hananiel)
So many resist the grace of God.
b. We are commanded to pray for "all men," says I Timothy 2:1, and verses 3 and 4 tell us, "For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour, Who will have ALL MEN to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth." We should pray for all men because God our Saviour "will have all men to be saved." So God would have all saved, but some will not be saved. So God's grace may he resisted.

(Luke)
What is most interesting in this citation is what the author ignored; 1 Timothy 2:2--"for kings and all who are in authority". Different types of men are in view here. "All" here means "all kinds of". God accomplishes all He pleases (Isaiah 46:10).

(hananiel)
I already explained to you Isaiah 46:10. And why you have to take that obscure scripture that was not even part of the Gospel, the good news, to say what you want to make it say. I explained why if love was forced, it was no love at all. Indeed if you love, you will know that emotion, better than a million greek or hebrew words.

(Luke)
I do love and know love, but I have no clue why that is relevant to this discussion. And your expalanation of Isaiah 46:10 was to attempt to disprove it or say it's wrong, which is unacceptable. You cannot pit Scripture against Scripture. And our love for God is not forced, it is given. That doesn't make it any less real or any less ours.

(hananiel)
c. We are told that Jesus wept over Jerusalem and told the sadness of His heart that His love and grace were refused. He said, in Matthew 23:37, "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!" Jesus said, "I would," "and ye would not." So His grace was rejected. It was not irresistible.

(Luke)
He didn't make it irresistible at that point. The doctrine of IG does not say that God's grace is always irresistible, it says that the Holy Spirit can make it so when He desires (and that whenever He doesn't, we will always resist).

(hananiel)
You yourselves agreed to the definition of IG. You made no switch clause, that you will turn it off when it pleases you. Perhaps you didnt see this argument, but if you were saying the truth and if your truth was more elegant it wont need so much twisting.

This is what you said :
Everything he said here is true until the statement "need feel no responsibility...".

(Luke)
The definition the author gave of IG above did not require that grace was irresistible all the time, it just said that God calls His own to salvation irresistibly. This is why I did not flag his definition as incorrect until I reached this point in the post.

For that matter, don't you think, had I just "not realized the argument" (I do know the argument, I have argued against it in the past), that I could have just scrolled up and changed my affirmation of the author's definition, and you would never have been the wiser?

The fact of the matter is that the author did not state anywhere in his definition that grace was always irresistible, so I did not respond to that misconception until this point.

And, actually, if you will look at John Piper's article on the Five Points of Calvinism, the article usually cited here to people that are asking to have Calvinism explained to them, he also says as the first two sentences of explaining Irresistible Grace, that...

"The doctrine of irresistible grace does not mean that every influence of the Holy Spirit cannot be resisted. It means that the Holy Spirit can overcome all resistance and make his influence irresistible."

So the argument that grace isn't always irresistible is not new or a reaction to the arguments your author gave. I am not twisting definitions to suit my purposes. This is the common definition of IG understood by those who advocate it. The fact that the author must misrepresent the doctrine to attempt to refute it is his problem, not mine.

(hananiel)
Now I understand that big preface, and "Now the easy part" hemming and hawing. You need to be honest. Seek the truth and you will find it.

(Luke)
??

(hananiel)
Do I need a better verdict. Out of your own mouth. If IRRESISTABLE GRACE does not teach that GRACE is IRRESISTABLE may be you should call it RESISTABLE GRACE. wait that wont fit, TULRP?

(Luke)
And again you are misrepresenting the doctrine, now to the other side. Listen for once...the doctrine of irresistible grace does not state that God's grace can never be resisted. It does say that the Holy Spirit can overcome all resistance and make His grace irresistible when He so chooses.

(hananiel)
So we can safely conclude, that Calvinism or to be accurate Hyper-calvinism is unbiblical.

(Luke)
Under your warped logic only...

And how is it accurate to call my belief "hyper-Calvinism"? Did I ever say that we don't need to evangelize (which is what hyper-Calvinists believe)? NO!

(hananiel)
I couldnt care less how people understand predestination. Who choose first as long as you see and be
1 grateful for the grace of God.
2. Dont give up on a sinner no matter how depraved you may think he is.
3. be careful of greiving the holy spirit

(Luke)
Calvinists do all of these. Your rhetoric is sickening....

Luke · 10-05-2002, 12:44 PM

(Superman)
Saying God can dop something so He must isnt the greates argument. God can make me grow 2 more arms or make everyone a saint, but He doesnt. Ability doesnt dictate action.

(Luke)
Agreed! But if you'll read back on the discussion, hananiel believes that He actually can't. He's said things like: God has no say in the heart of a sinner, but wishes He did.

Acquinas · 10-05-2002, 05:44 PM

I am responding to the part of this post about division in the faith and not the points for either side of the division.

I had said abut two pages ago that we shouldn't allow a doctrinal dispute to split the church. This is true for Calvinism and arminianism

Brian: This isn't a quarrel about the law, it is an ongoing debate about the very nature of Salvation and God.

Acquinas: No. Everything that the Bible says about God still holds true, regardless of how God predestines people. God is still god in either viewpoint. Jesus is still Mesiah in either viewpoint and served to cleanse the people who are saved. Men are still sinners and are depraved in nature. Those who are saved are still saved because of their belief. The only question that divides the two is whre this faith comes from (God or man) and whether someone can overcome his sinful nature by an act of the will. God's nature is unchanged. Salvation is still only for those who believe.

Chrysostom · 10-06-2002, 06:30 PM

(Travis) Invalid comparison. God can do anything. And it it would be better compared to Him changing the mind of the horse and making him desire to drink, not making him.

*That was obviously implied.

(Superman) Saying God can dop something so He must isnt the greates argument. God can make me grow 2 more arms or make everyone a saint, but He doesnt. Ability doesnt dictate action.

(Me) As Luke pointed out, Hananiel's original analogy said "you can't make him drink." Travis says that God can make him drink.

I think the key with looking at John 6 is to examine the recurring theme of drawing -- election. I find a parallel meaning in each of these verses:

37 All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will certainly not cast out.

39 This is the will of Him who sent Me, that of all that He has given Me I lose nothing, but raise it up on the last day.

40 For this is the will of My Father, that everyone who beholds the Son and believes in Him will have eternal life, and I Myself will raise him up on the last day.

44 No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day.

45 It is written in the prophets, 'AND THEY SHALL ALL BE TAUGHT OF GOD.' Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father, comes to Me.

65 And He was saying, "For this reason I have said to you, that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted him from the Father."

The parallel language here seems to point to essentially equivocable meanings in all six verses. Verses 37, 39, and 45 are all unconditional and irresistible. The Greek of verse 44 also lends to an irresistible interpretation.

In verse 40, we see that all that believe are saved. The crowd then goes on to question Him, asking how they can believe. Jesus responds that the Father must draw them (44). Continuing His answer, Jesus quotes the OT (45). His statement is absolute and precludes the possibility of efficacious resistance: "Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father, comes to [Christ]."

It is, therefore, no small step to link verses 44 and 45; after all, the latter immediately follows the former, and offers a similar answer and clarification in response to the same question. Thus, because 45 and 44 should properly be linked, we should interpret verse 44's drawing as irresistible. Again, retrace our steps. Those that believe are saved, and those that are drawn believe. Christ teaches it right there.

As I've pointed out, we see parallel statements throughout the passage. When Christ notes grumbling among His followers (60) at this difficult teaching (61), He sums up the teaching as such: "no one can come to Me unless it has been granted him from the Father" (65). Each statement I've pointed out in this passage provides a completely theocentric soteriological perspective. God's will is the impetus, the driving force of salvation -- not man's. God is sovereign, and man is along for the ride.