tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1971383925726802733.post5930190414315228357..comments2023-04-16T01:40:48.403-07:00Comments on The Benevolent Hecklers: HUMAN NATUREDaniel (Da Pilgrim)http://www.blogger.com/profile/17590499058101108349noreply@blogger.comBlogger78125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1971383925726802733.post-536853228217979312014-04-18T21:59:23.378-07:002014-04-18T21:59:23.378-07:00Hi Paul, thanks for your reply!
I understand your...Hi Paul, thanks for your reply!<br /><br />I understand your interpretation of John 3:16 as being a limiting factor. But I simply don't see a limited atonement or instant ownership as a necessary conclusion. I believe what you have brought forth is a false dichotomy. <br /><br />The way I see the atonement of Christ, is buy seeing His payment on the cross as a free offer laid down on the table that clears all debts. The defendant can then chose to plead guilty and accept the generous offer or plead guilty and face the death penalty (he will be convicted anyway whether he believes it or not).<br />I also do not see rejection as necessarily having to be absolute. We were rejects at enmity with God until we came and submitted ourselves before Christ. It is only through Christ's payment that we become His. Christ's death I see as different to the convicting and calling of the Spirit. The convicting of the Spirit conclusively affects people at different stages of life, but the means by which the Spirit can draw people to God is by the mediation done through Christ.<br /><br />So I don't see rejection as being permanent. I however see that God works in aions or ages. This is where I see the chosen versus the rejected concept manifesting. Some people are chosen within a certain age, and rejects during that age are chosen within a different age. This is why Paul can talk about the elect and non elect eventually all having a purpose that ends in salvation or "fullness".<br /><br />Regarding the different types of Israel. The Bible isn't really that clear to me. I currently see Israel as two types - the natural, and the true "natural" children of God. The Gentiles are similar - the wild, and the true "wild" children of God. Gentiles are grafted into the true "natural" children of God grown from the olive tree. The rejects are cut off or their grafting in is prolonged.<br /><br />Not sure what you mean by the "Commandments", but yes I do believe all people will be accepted and restored to God eventually. I do not believe that anyone will be in an eternal state of perishing or rejection. I however do accept the idea as Jesus taught that people will "perish" (for a time) and are rejected (for a time).<br />What decides when people are accepted or rejected? Similar to what an Arminianist would claim, I believe that people come to God when they decide to. But as a Calvinist would claim, I believe God is in control of how and when that person decides to.<br />See, to me God is in total control. He moulds us and grows us into who He wants us to become. For some that is a longer road and others a shorter road depending on the character God has created us to be. Some come to Him easier and others do not. But God knows the process by which we all can and will come to Him and values His creation enough to be committed to the sometimes long process. He sets out to lead us and mould us but still respecting our individual characters that He has given us. He wants to win us over, not to force us over. But He knows exactly how to win us over. Thus, He has sovereignty over us and yet has respect for our free agency (not free will) at the same time.<br /><br />Starting to get onto another topic but cheers! maybe a topic for another day, another post which I plan to do one day soon :)<br /><br />Cheers. Daniel (Da Pilgrim)https://www.blogger.com/profile/17590499058101108349noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1971383925726802733.post-42029460086713308012014-04-16T04:06:13.261-07:002014-04-16T04:06:13.261-07:00Thanks brother Daniel, it is worth while to persis...Thanks brother Daniel, it is worth while to persist and expand the borders of our understanding, especially when we have opposing views.<br /> <br />I understand the Arminian take on the atonement.<br />But let's look from another perspective.<br />If the Lord Jesus went to the only one baker in the whole world and paid for every loaf of bread in the whole world, therefore every loaf of bread must belong to the Lord Jesus and no one else would ever own a loaf of bread, that is because He paid for them all and they always would belong to Jesus and stay with Jesus and no one would be able to snatch them out of His hand.<br /><br />Yes, that would be a nice thought, but that is not Scriptural and not true.<br />However, the truth is, that the Lord Jesus went to the baker and bought and paid only for ALL the unleavened loaves of bread in the whole world. <br />Because He is an omnipotent buyer, he makes sure that every loaf of unleavened bread in the whole world would be in His possession and nobody would be able to snatch them out of His hand.<br />Remember that the Lord Jesus stood before the baker and said, 'let my unleavened bread go' (Ex, 5:1 and 8:1 and 9:1 etc.) and remember the price He paid for His unleavened loaves of bread was written on the two doorposts and the lintel (Ex. 12:7).<br />Therefore His death is joy only for the elect in the whole world and weeping and mourning and gnashing of teeth for the rejects. <br />I think it is very important to believe that we cannot add or take away from the blood of Jesus Christ in order to be effective.<br />By that I mean that the blood-sacrifice of Jesus does NOT become effective when we believe or have faith or trust or whatever.<br />The blood-sacrifice of Jesus is the finished work once and for all for everyone of whom it is intended for, also called 'Limited Atonement'. <br /><br />Also, I like your explanation on Romans 11, you nearly have convinced me to adjust my thinking, except that I cannot see a rejection in that interpretation.<br />You see, an election without a rejection is no election at all.<br />If eventually all will be accepted, then there was no rejection at first, a temporary rejection is not a rejection at all, it is a delayed acceptance.<br />Therefore I assume that Romans 11 is mainly speaking about religious Israel. <br />(Rom.11:17) speaks of us as the wild olive branch being grafted in the original olive tree which is religious Israel, in other words, the religion of the Gentiles (Christianity) has been amalgamated with the religion of Israel, that's why Christianity is so closely knitted with the Jewish religious roots.<br /><br />Throughout the entire Bible the 'Olive Tree' is always revered to 'Religious Israel', and the 'Fig tree' to to 'Natural Israel', and the 'Vine' is the 'Spiritual Israel'.<br />We as the Gentiles can never become 'Natural Israel', but we can become 'Religious Israel' by our will or choice and in that sense we have been grafted into the olive tree. but neither Israel or the Gentiles can become Spiritual Israel, for that, a man must be born again and that is only by the will of the Lord and His choice and doing. <br />So then your cosmic plan of God to restore ALL, would only be for those of 'Religious Israel and Gentile', providing they believe and keep the Commandments? <br />Surely you don't mean that all mankind would be accepted and restored to God and no one would be rejected and perish? <br />Paul Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15227545422232659930noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1971383925726802733.post-83331475039647691742014-04-12T22:08:17.843-07:002014-04-12T22:08:17.843-07:00OK, feeling furious. I just wrote a long reply to ...OK, feeling furious. I just wrote a long reply to you Paul and posted it, and it didn't post and so I lost it...<br />So here is a shortened version lol.<br />Jesus died for the whole world, not just for the elect. That is what it says. The Arminian take on it is the take that I have. Jesus death is sufficient for all but only comes into effect once the world or parts of it accept what He has done for them. His death is joy to the world not just the elect.<br /><br />Regarding Israel, the elect and non-elect in Romans 11.<br />The elect and non-elect that God distinguished between were from within Israel. Paul continues this concept right through to verse 11 which is talking about the stumbling non-elect within Israel. Paul goes on to claim boldly that the non-elect's stumble will not result in a fall, but in fullness.<br />This is God's cosmic plan for mankind I believe. That through a process of stumbling, jealousy, moulding etc, He will eventually restore all to Himself, elect and non-elect. He is the Potter we are the clay, He decides our outcome that best fits His plan. We respond to His creative hand in which ever direction that He chooses. He will take our hearts of stone and make them flesh.<br /><br />Cheers. Daniel (Da Pilgrim)https://www.blogger.com/profile/17590499058101108349noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1971383925726802733.post-27683822207722329582014-04-04T15:21:51.014-07:002014-04-04T15:21:51.014-07:00Hi Paul,
All I can say is that you will not find ...Hi Paul,<br /><br />All I can say is that you will not find your view helpful in your discussion with others! Calvinist or Arminianist disagree with you about the nature of their debate - it is definitely regarding ETERNAL salvation only. The nature of temporal blessings / salvation is a separate matter which a mix of them already agree on with you, without it impacting their debate. You aren't suggesting anything new with your 'works-based temporary salvation/blessing', you're simply suggesting they stop refuting election. <br /><br />If you suggest to an Arminianist that simply switching their view of works to apply to temporal blessings will solve the debate, they will hate the idea, because the real problem they have with Calvinism is not about allowing some works somewhere in the picture, it is about allowing works into ALL of the picture. This is usually due to a philosophical desire to avoid the concept of people being elected to Hell. <br /><br />Your view could never solve this problem (requiring works EVERYWHERE to avoid election completely), and as I said it boils down to asking them to stop refuting election without adding anything new. To most people it is simply another Calvinist interpretation, with the addition of a bizarre / convoluted DNA basis of election, for no apparent reason or benefit.<br /><br />I can see you are trying to be helpful but really it doesn't solve or have any impact on the problem most people have. If you are aware of this when you discuss your view with others, I think it will prevent some angst :)Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02149662594350828627noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1971383925726802733.post-47563177722825894972014-04-03T05:50:38.080-07:002014-04-03T05:50:38.080-07:00Joshua, at the base of the salvation debate betwee...Joshua, at the base of the salvation debate between Calvinists and Aminianism is grace and works.<br />Yes I know that the Aminianists add in a grace which is before the grace, but the difference will always be grace and works<br />.<br />The problem is not aspects or views or an eternal destiny, it simply is between grace and works.<br /><br />After a long debate with an Arminian brother, I have asked him whether a man can be saved by doing absolutely nothing? His answer was 'NO'!<br /><br />Calvinists maintain the position that a man is saved by grace alone.<br />So then, what do you say, can a severely intellectuall inferior man be saved by doing absolutely nothing?<br />The answer to the above question determines on your view of grace.<br /><br />My view of grace is that grace is the opposite of works.<br />Grace is 100% (ALL) of God and absolutely NOTHING of men. <br />While we were DEAD in sins and trespasses, Christ saved us. <br />So when the Lord saved by grace, He did it without our agreement or co-operation.<br /><br />If all salvation are by works, then there would be no debate and neither would there be a debate if all salvation would be by grace. But when grace came, it brought a division and demanded an explanation. <br />I demonstrate a temporary SALVATION not a temporary blessing.<br /><br />For instance a salvation from being born physically blind and then by his effort, will, faith and believing that Jesus would be able to give him eyes to see, was saved from blindness.<br />In contrast I demonstrate a salvation by grace alone, a man born spiritually dead from Adams sin, and then being made alive by grace alone and only by the will of God.<br /><br />Yes I say that election is according to the DNA.<br />The DNA of the children determines to which father they belong.<br />And the Lord Jesus gave His life for His children, He redeemed His children and not those who belong to their father the devil, the serpent.<br />Jesus said, 'If God were their Father, they would love Him, but they belonged to their father the devil' (John 8:42-44).<br /><br />Even though the sons of God cross-bred from the beginning, but the main cross-breeding (DNA) came before the flood in Genesis 6:4 'The Nephilim were on the earth in those days and also afterward when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men, and they bore children to them. Those were the mighty men who were of old, men of renown.'<br /><br />Yes the Lord does elect according to the DNA who are His children, starting with Adam Gen. 5:3-32. <br />This is the line we know, after that the Lord surely knows who are His children and He knows each one by Name. <br />As for us, we only know them, when they are revealed (born again), and then we call them brothers, that is because we now have the same Father who is in heaven Jesus Christ our Lord and God.<br />Paul Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15227545422232659930noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1971383925726802733.post-81751704309491936162014-04-01T15:52:53.733-07:002014-04-01T15:52:53.733-07:00Paul - I'm sorry but I can't see you agree...Paul - I'm sorry but I can't see you agreeing at all with the arminianist salvation doctrine! The arminianist doctrine of salvation is regarding eternal destiny, not the other 'salvation' aspects of healing and temporal blessing. Your view definitely does NOT include the Arminianist view, and it doesn't contain both aspects of salvation. Besides, many people already agree with some form of temporal blessings based on righteousness and/or faith (although I think this often adhered to in a far too simplistic manner, i.e. as with Job's friends). Your view of eternal destiny is Calvinism, and your view of temporal blessing is nothing new and is definitely not linked to election or Arminianism. I can understand you division of 'salvation' into two (this is Scriptural, after all), but I don't think it resolves anything or is useful or new or alternative in any way. Also I think you misinterpret which kind of 'salvation' is meant in many scriptures, and you forget that even the 'temporal' blessings you describe are 'elected' (e.g. the blind man who Jesus healed by faith).<br /><br />All that aside, however, the REAL new aspect to your theory is the basis of God's election (which I still don't completely understand, but seems to be genetics or lineage of some kind?). How do you account for the direct teaching of Scripture that He does NOT elect based on genetics, and that the children will not suffer (in a temporal or eternal sense) from the father's sins? How do you account for the mix of lineages throughout all humanity by now, not least because all humanity now descends from Noah (not Seth or Cain). How do you account for Scriptures suggesting that salvation requires our involvement (this fits with Free Agency, but not with genetics which are literally COMPLETELY apart from anything we do). How to you account for Scriptures implying God's direct control over who He chooses and why, rather than being bound to any strict rule?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02149662594350828627noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1971383925726802733.post-3768046348495179662014-03-31T13:58:34.652-07:002014-03-31T13:58:34.652-07:00Thanks for the links Daniel - had a quick look but...Thanks for the links Daniel - had a quick look but will go back when I have more time. I see some comments on Rob Bell's book "Love Wins" over there - I thoroughly enjoyed it and really don't know what all the fuss is about concerning it. I didn't take from the book that he is a Universalist, just more focussed on God's grace than on figuring out who is "in" and who is "out" :)Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15714261646211401356noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1971383925726802733.post-7086866729600270472014-03-31T05:20:14.641-07:002014-03-31T05:20:14.641-07:00Joshua, you said, 'Also, using this 'major...Joshua, you said, 'Also, using this 'majority opinion' definition of doctrinal resolution, I'm afraid your alternative view is not a truly alternative view. It is actually just a variant of the Calvinist view, containing all the problems that the 'majority opinion' sees with the other Calvinist views. You still believe there are people God created with their irrevocable eternal destiny as Hell'<br /><br />Yes, I agree with the Calvinists and the Arminianists salvation doctrine, that is because I divide salvation into two, one salvation which is by grace alone, the other salvation is by works. The reason is that we cannot amalgamate grace and works, if grace is mingled with works grace is no longer grace.<br /><br />The Calvinists major on grace, in fact they condemn works in salvation, just as I do, but only in the new birth salvation.<br />The Arminianists major on works based salvation, just as I do, but only in a natural salvation like healing etc. and they also weave into salvation a 'Preveniant' grace, which I don't. <br />A Preveniant grace is a grace which comes before 'grace' to enable a sinner to choose Jesus, or to call upon the Name of the Lord, or to put faith in Jesus, or whatever.<br /> <br />My position is in the middle, I can clearly demonstrate from the Scriptures a salvation which ONLY by grace, apart from works and another salvation which is clearly by works, doing something.<br /><br />You said, 'You still believe there are people God created with their irrevocable eternal destiny as Hell' <br /><br />No my brother, I believe that God wants no one to perish but ALL to be saved. Every body who believes in Jesus Christ will be saved and if they don't believe they will be damned. <br /><br />To resolve the tension between Calvinism and Arminianism, well Joshua, that is a nice thought, but only the Lord can do that. But praise be to the Lord that He has solved that problem in my own heart.<br />Yes I agree that free agency has a stronger stand than free will, but I have a small problem with both, perhaps a big problem :-)<br />Paul Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15227545422232659930noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1971383925726802733.post-2036758172830838692014-03-31T05:14:01.317-07:002014-03-31T05:14:01.317-07:00Continued,
You said, 'I agree that the elect c...Continued,<br />You said, 'I agree that the elect can fall away for a time and then be grafted in again. I am not a once saved always saved believer in that sense, but I do believe that the elect are those who are to be saved in this age. I think that you are potentially missing something in Romans 11.' <br /><br />I'm not sure where to start on this one, perhaps I will explain the salvation of the elect.<br />Only the elect has received and will receive a salvation which is by grace alone and that salvation is a free gift of eternal life, that is a spiritual life, born again by the Spirit of God.<br />In contrast, the non-elect will never get that free gift. To them salvation is to believe in the only one whom God has sent, that is in Jesus Christ our Lord.<br />The charge of believing in Jesus is to the whole world,and not just only to the non-elect but to ALL, for everyone who believes will be saved, but they will never see life or have eternal life. But the FREE GIFT of God eternal life will only be given to God's children the elect. <br /><br />Rom. 11:7, it is the nation of Israel who seeks eternal life, but they did not obtain it, because they think that they can obtain it by works, just the same as most Christians today. But the Scriptures says that it is the elect who obtained it (by grace) and the rest were blinded.<br />The nation Israel cannot see that and neither can they understand it, (v.10) 'let their eyes be darkened TO SEE NOT, and bend their backs forever'. <br />'Bend their backs forever' is the penalty for thinking that they can obtain the promise by works.<br />Remember that Sarai's deeds did not produce a son of God, but SARAH's son is a son of God. <br />You and I and all of us have to make sure that we don't make the same mistake as natural Israel does.<br />Can you see my brother, that it is a partial darkening for the natural Israel to open the gates for the Gentile nations so that we, the Gentiles can be grafted into the rootstock of Israel, but not to the natural Israel but to the spiritual Israel in Christ Jesus our Lord. For it is impossible for us Gentiles to become Israelites, but in Christ we ALL are the true Israel.<br /><br />Natural Israel is now jealous of the Gentiles, because they can see that we (the Gentiles) have now received the promise as a free gift by grace and not by works.<br />Now, when I said the 'Gentiles', I mean the elect among the Gentile nations and not every Gentile person.<br />So then, what do I say; It is the elect out of the nation Israel which is the true Israel, the Israel of God.<br />Brother, these things have troubled me for years and I could never see it, till I asked the Lord Jesus Christ to open my eyes and remove that big plank from my eyes, so that I might see clearly.<br />After that the Lord Jesus in an instant opened my eyes and I could see it from Genesis to Revelation nearly on every page of the Bible. It is such a marvellous doctrine that it will demand a change in most or nearly all of your other doctrines. <br />Daniel, remember when the Lord Jesus said, 'anything you ask Me, I will do for you', so please ask the Lord Jesus and you will not be disappointed.<br />Paul Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15227545422232659930noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1971383925726802733.post-87387157264342212492014-03-31T05:11:44.402-07:002014-03-31T05:11:44.402-07:00Daniel, You said, 'God does love everybody in ...Daniel, You said, 'God does love everybody in the sense of a sacrificial love. He detests the wicked but at the same time desires their best outcome.'<br /><br />Well brother, He actually 'HATES the wicked (Ps. 5:5), just like He hated Esau before they have done good or bad, and again 'in order that election might stand' (Rom. 9:11).<br />You see, in election the Lord produces the outcome.<br />In the non-elect, men's deeds produce the outcome.<br /><br />By 'sacrificial love' I think that you mean that Jesus laid down His life for everybody in the whole world?<br />Again I can see a problem in that statement, 'election is missing'. Remember, election must stand.<br /><br />If the Lord Jesus has sacrificed His LIFE, for ten people, then by necessity all TEN people MUST be saved and have eternal life, that is because the Lord Jesus SACRIFICED His sinless LIFE for those ten people, it is an exchange, His life for theirs.<br />If the Lord Jesus sacrificed His life for the WHOLE WORLD, for everybody, then everybody in the whole world would be saved and have eternal life, because of the simple reason that He laid down His life for theirs.<br /> <br />So then, why is it that some are not saved and do not have life eternal?<br />The answer to that is simple, Jesus did not sacrifice His life for them, in order that election might stand.<br /><br />The same is 'LOVE'; if love has no election, love would be meaningless. The power of love is in election.<br />If God loves everybody in the whole world alike, we would not and could not know what God's love is, because we would have nothing to compare. <br />Therefore God's love has it's power and meaning by the rejection of others, which is called election.<br /><br />You said, 'True. Is that because of an realisation of a lack of control over hell, or simply that people don't like to lose their autonomy or subject themselves to God?'<br />Daniel, you are spot on!<br />I think it is the hardest task to subject ourselves to God. We all like to give the Lord a little control of our lives, but only as far as 'WE' permit Him.<br />Paul Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15227545422232659930noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1971383925726802733.post-29387368751862990762014-03-30T15:45:29.937-07:002014-03-30T15:45:29.937-07:00Hi Paul - although most Arminianists and Calvinist...Hi Paul - although most Arminianists and Calvinists talk past each other, it is not true that they have ALL failed to reconcile their beliefs. A good many individuals believe they have done just that throughout history. <br /><br />If what you mean is that the majority opinions still do not match, that doesn't surprise me. There's hardly any theological issue where the majority opinions are reconciled - that in no way means there isn't a single unified (even obvious) Scriptural reconciliation that many individuals have discovered. <br /><br />Also, using this 'majority opinion' definition of doctrinal resolution, I'm afraid your alternative view is not a truly alternative view. It is actually just a variant of the Calvinist view, containing all the problems that the 'majority opinion' sees with the other Calvinist views. You still believe there are people God created with their irrevocable eternal destiny as Hell.<br /><br />If you want to resolve the real tension between Arminianism and Calvinism you must somehow allow for individual 'sovereign' expression and the necessity of our involvement and responsibility, while still affirming God's complete control over our individual thoughts and decisions and emotions. Difficult task to be sure! I think the idea of Free Agency does just that, when compared to a realistic and full appreciation of what the alternative 'Free Will' would actually look like and imply...Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02149662594350828627noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1971383925726802733.post-90937543000827270462014-03-29T01:25:36.682-07:002014-03-29T01:25:36.682-07:00Clive, here are some interesting sources regarding...Clive, here are some interesting sources regarding the reconciliation of all things. They all may not necessarily match with my or Josh's ideas but they are along a similar line. For example, unitarian universalism is not at all what I or Josh propose, nor do we propose a disbelief in hell, but more question the pop interpretation on the nature of hell these days.<br /><br />Here is an "evangelical universalism forum" http://www.evangelicaluniversalist.com/forum/<br />Here is another good source with lots of though provoking stuff http://www.tentmaker.org/<br /><br />Some of this scriptural support is a bit of a stretch, but it still contains some good points and ideas <br />http://www.auburn.edu/~allenkc/univ3.html <br /><br />cheers.Daniel (Da Pilgrim)https://www.blogger.com/profile/17590499058101108349noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1971383925726802733.post-30729910754706418702014-03-29T01:16:01.599-07:002014-03-29T01:16:01.599-07:00Keith,
---"”For everyone who asks receives; ...Keith,<br /><br />---<i>"”For everyone who asks receives; the one who seeks finds; and to the one who knocks, the door will be opened, as long as you were chosen before the beginning of time.”<br />Now, I have tried my best both in the past and the last few days to look at the election of an individual based on salvation alone and try to fit it into the nature of God that is supported by Scripture, but I cannot. I have tried so hard because Daniel and Joshua and others are so adamant about it. However, I still come to the same conclusion.<br />You cannot have the true purpose of Torah and the Cross, which is all mankind to be saved, the open invitation to everyone and the election of an individual based on their salvation alone without adding capricious, hypocrisy and unreliability to the nature of God. It just doesn’t work.<br /><br />Your friend and brother in the Messiah"</i> ---<br /><br />Yes I understand your view point here. Scripture is written like we have responsibility. But there are also numerous places in scripture where our outcome is decided by God (including our pre conversion) which appears contradictory, especially when God holds us responsible for our actions. This is why I personally struggle with the concept of Calvinism and with the concept of Arminianism. The best explanation I have considered that covers all bases, that works with "free agency" and God's free agency, is the idea of the reconciliation of all things to Christ. <br /><br />I really would like to work on a post that covers my ideas around the reconciliation of all things to Christ and I would like to hear what you think :)<br /><br />God Bless! and above all Baruch HaShem!Daniel (Da Pilgrim)https://www.blogger.com/profile/17590499058101108349noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1971383925726802733.post-71723481326902049652014-03-29T01:13:31.389-07:002014-03-29T01:13:31.389-07:00continued...
Paul:
---Romans chapter 11. starts in...continued...<br />Paul:<br /><i>---Romans chapter 11. starts in election, as in 'His people'.<br />His people means, His children the elect. Any other children are not His children or people.<br />Elijah had the assumption that he was the only one left in Israel who was the elect, but the Lord corrected him saying in v.4 “I have kept for myself seven thousand “ of the elect. And He makes it clear that they were saved by grace on not by works, for if it would be by works, grace would no longer be grace.<br />Verse 11-25 speaks about the elect of Israel who have fallen away and later be grafted back in again, just the same as it is today among the elect.---</i> <br /><br />I agree that the elect can fall away for a time and then be grafted in again. I am not a once saved always saved believer in that sense, but I do believe that the elect are those who are to be saved in this age. I think that you are potentially missing something in Romans 11. <br />See Romans 11:7, <br /><i><b>"What then? Israel has not obtained what it seeks; but the elect have obtained it, and the rest were blinded."</b></i><br />and then v 11-14<br />suggests that "the rest were blinded" (in v7) are the "they" who stumbled in vs 11. But vs 11-14 says that those who were not considered to be the elect will be saved.... they have not stumbled that they should fall.<br /><br /><i><b>"I say then, have they stumbled that they should fall? Certainly not! But through their fall, to provoke them to jealousy, salvation has come to the Gentiles. 12 Now if their fall is riches for the world, and their failure riches for the Gentiles, how much more their fullness!<br />13 For I speak to you Gentiles; inasmuch as I am an apostle to the Gentiles, I magnify my ministry, 14 if by any means I may provoke to jealousy those who are my flesh and save some of them. 15 For if their being cast away is the reconciling of the world, what will their acceptance be but life from the dead?"</b></i><br /><br />The end of the chapter finishes with the idea that all will be committed to disobedience so that God may have mercy on all. God is weaving an amazing story of salvation for all people. The elect in one aion and the non elect in another aion. <br /><br />cheers.Daniel (Da Pilgrim)https://www.blogger.com/profile/17590499058101108349noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1971383925726802733.post-44248428687689764322014-03-29T01:12:45.058-07:002014-03-29T01:12:45.058-07:00Paul:
---Daniel, we all read into any passage of t...Paul:<br /><i>---Daniel, we all read into any passage of the Scriptures and that is not necessarily wrong.<br />I think as long as we interpret the Scriptures so that the Lord Jesus is always sovereign within the interpretation then we can't go wrong.---</i><br /><br />Yes, I agree! Keeping to the main concepts of the Bible is imperative but God leaves much of the Bible up to interpretation. I find that interesting to think about. The reasons I believe God didn't write a "text" book covering all the topics chapter by chapter i.e. Chapter 1. God, Chapter 2. Man etc, is because He wants us to live and breath His truths. There is no answer for every situation in life but we have guidelines by which God would teach us to act with wisdom. God's word is rather organic in that it is rich with real life, real experiences and from that we interpret what God is like and sometimes that is no easy task. But the journey is a journey of growth, as we learn more about Him and what He desires us to become.<br /><br /><i>---Most Christians say that God loves every human being in the world (John 3:16) without actually reading the Bible properly or asking the Lord whether He really does love everyone.--- </i><br /><br />God does love everybody in the sense of a sacrificial love. He detests the wicked but at the same time desires their best outcome.<br /><br /><i>---The doctrine of election is a scary doctrine, and most Christians don't like that doctrine, because it removes the saving power of the new birth from the domain of men and into the courts of the sovereign Lord Jesus Christ our saviour.---</i><br /><br />True. Is that because of an realisation of a lack of control over hell, or simply that people don't like to lose their autonomy or subject themselves to God? <br /><br /><i>---Well brother, Rom.11 is one of the Calvinists favourite chapter.---</i><br /><br />It is also a very good reconciliationist chapter :)<br /><br /><i>---Again I like to say that I am not a Calvinist, but I believe and can see the doctrine of election throughout the Bible. <br />To be able to see the election of God, one must believe and not just acknowledge Romans 9 especially verse 11.<br />"Yet before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad in order that God's purpose in election might stand: not by works but by Him who calls".<br /><br />This is a key statement to understand election. If a doctrine does not contain election, the doctrine is most likely not true, because election must stand in every doctrine.---</i><br /><br />True, although some Arminianist ideas work well with many scriptures as ND points out. However it is a matter of choosing the best explanation that incorporates all truths, both of election and faith. <br /><br />Daniel (Da Pilgrim)https://www.blogger.com/profile/17590499058101108349noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1971383925726802733.post-40615038435335877262014-03-28T15:07:49.507-07:002014-03-28T15:07:49.507-07:00Keith, thank you for expressing your desire for re...Keith, thank you for expressing your desire for reconciliation! I desire the same.<br /><br />Unfortunately I still can't see anything wrong or unbalanced or insensitive in how I addressed your arguments. I never like to contribute to the feelings of hurt and frustration that I sensed. So I sincerely want you, if you can, to point our exactly which responses were unfair and how.<br /><br />In the meantime, or if you struggle to do this, all I can do is assure you of my intentions. I was never offended or hurt, though I did get frustrated at the end by the continual assertions that I was, in fact, offended! I did not want to 'lash out', but was merely attempting to continue a scripturally informed and balanced debate. <br /><br />I did not want to question the intent of your heart, merely the way you went about pursuing it. But you were doing this for Scriptural reasons (though I consider them wrong) - so I wanted this too to be another Scripturally informed discussion. I believe we have the same spirit and see the same nature of God - unity between us should be sweet and strong despite our doctrinal differences, and this is what I want.<br /><br />I accept my responsibility in a miscommunication of some kind. May Christ help us both grow in love that we may be blameless before God when He comes again! (1 Thessalonians 3:12)Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02149662594350828627noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1971383925726802733.post-87785761432465340672014-03-28T07:11:15.929-07:002014-03-28T07:11:15.929-07:00Joshua;
As you can see, I present a third perspect...Joshua;<br />As you can see, I present a third perspective.<br />In time past we only had two perspectives, the Arminian and the Calvinist perspective and both will never agree with one another. For hundredth of years they have been throwing Bible verses at each other without really understanding each others position.<br />So then, if they have failed, most likely we also will fail.<br /><br />Therefore I present an other perspective, in which are both belief-systems contained.<br /><br />I think that the only way to solve that problem is to understand salvation as two sided. <br />One aspect of salvation only deals with the new birth (grace), for the elect, and the other aspect deals with the natural salvation which is by works, as in healing, broken marriages etc.<br />If that is clearly seen in the Scriptures, perhaps there will be unity among the Saints. <br />Paul Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15227545422232659930noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1971383925726802733.post-18929478161833660092014-03-28T07:05:09.716-07:002014-03-28T07:05:09.716-07:00Hi Keith,
You said, "For the grace of God has...Hi Keith,<br />You said, "For the grace of God has appeared that offers salvation to all people." Titus 2:11<br />"For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior; Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth" 1 Tim. 2:3-4”<br />Yes my brother, I always agree with the Scriptures as you know. But remember, I preach a TWO sided salvation. <br />One side is the new birth, to be born again which is by grace alone and not by works.<br />The other side is the natural salvation which is by WORKS, by doing something, like believing, faith, water baptism and whatever else the Bible says. <br />I also call this an elective salvation, the first side is only for the elect, the second side is for ALL men, (in order that election might stand) (Rom. 9:11).<br /><br />Brother, if there is an ELECTION, that alone demands a REJECTION.<br />It is not possible to elect ALL human beings.<br />Election is by the Lords choice alone and not by our choice or our cooperation. <br /><br />You see, sons of the devil cannot become sons of God, just like you and I cannot become sons to the Queen of England, it is as simple as that.<br />If that is not possible in the natural, why is it that most Christians say that everybody can become sons to God, all they must do is to accept God, or believe in Him, or jump another few hoops. <br /> <br />To be sons, we must be 'IN' our father before we were born, the same is with the elect (Eph. 1:4). <br />And to be brothers we must have the same father.<br /><br />You said, "God also offers the world an open invitation to come home, as seen in John 3:16. The "whosoever" in John 3:16 is anyone that will answer the call."<br /><br />Keith, can you see any election in John 3:16 or in the whole chapter?<br /><br />Perhaps another question, can you see election in the first six words of John 3:16, “For God so loved the world”?<br /><br />Yes, I thought so! <br />Only few are those who can see it. <br />And to see it you need a pair of election glasses, which I recommend to get them from the Lord. :-)<br />With those election glasses you can see election nearly on every page of the Bible and they are just amazing. But the Lord will give them only to them who ask :-) <br />Well brother, I think there is plenty of room for readjusting your election concept.<br /><br />I know that controversy for the sake of controversy is sin but controversy for the sake of truth is the divine will of God. <br />Paul Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15227545422232659930noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1971383925726802733.post-69679221274576301582014-03-28T06:56:14.674-07:002014-03-28T06:56:14.674-07:00Daniel, we all read into any passage of the Script...Daniel, we all read into any passage of the Scriptures and that is not necessarily wrong.<br />I think as long as we interpret the Scriptures so that the Lord Jesus is always sovereign within the interpretation then we can't go wrong.<br /> <br />Most Christians say that God loves every human being in the world (John 3:16) without actually reading the Bible properly or asking the Lord whether He really does love everyone. <br /> <br />The doctrine of election is a scary doctrine, and most Christians don't like that doctrine, because it removes the saving power of the new birth from the domain of men and into the courts of the sovereign Lord Jesus Christ our saviour. <br /><br />Satan's children are not a part of Jesus Christ, they are the enemy of Christ and the enemy of the gospel and they belong to their father the devil (John 8:44). <br /> <br />Well brother, Rom.11 is one of the Calvinists favourite chapter.<br /><br />Again I like to say that I am not a Calvinist, but I believe and can see the doctrine of election throughout the Bible. <br />To be able to see the election of God, one must believe and not just acknowledge Romans 9 especially verse 11.<br />"Yet before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad in order that God's purpose in election might stand: not by works but by Him who calls".<br /> <br />This is a key statement to understand election. If a doctrine does not contain election, the doctrine is most likely not true, because election must stand in every doctrine.<br /><br />Romans chapter 11. starts in election, as in 'His people'.<br />His people means, His children the elect. Any other children are not His children or people.<br />Elijah had the assumption that he was the only one left in Israel who was the elect, but the Lord corrected him saying in v.4 “I have kept for myself seven thousand “ of the elect. And He makes it clear that they were saved by grace on not by works, for if it would be by works, grace would no longer be grace.<br />Verse 11-25 speaks about the elect of Israel who have fallen away and later be grafted back in again, just the same as it is today among the elect. Perhaps you know of some brothers who have turned away from Jesus and later came back and were grafted back in again into the true Israel of God, the spiritual Israel of Jesus Christ our Lord and God, the elect who are born again and not by their will but the will of God.Paul Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15227545422232659930noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1971383925726802733.post-9602380791455683562014-03-28T05:58:59.048-07:002014-03-28T05:58:59.048-07:00Joshua,
After much prayer and discernment, let m...Joshua, <br /><br />After much prayer and discernment, let me start by saying that above all and in the Messiah, I count you as my brother and my friend. <br /><br />With that said, please look at the second comment, my very first comment of this post. I gave you scriptural rebuttal to your philosophical account. You responded by lashing out at me. <br /><br />Even after apologizing for possibly hurting your feelings in my follow-up comment, you continued to lash out at me and even calling the intent of my heart into question and accusing me of disunity.<br /><br />I feel and continue to feel that your initial responses to me were unfair. <br /><br />I will not continue in this tit for tat. I hope you will do the same.<br /><br />Meshiach ShalomKeithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11254093786094787764noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1971383925726802733.post-3575750301687472632014-03-27T14:53:22.022-07:002014-03-27T14:53:22.022-07:00The purpose of my article was philosophical, so I ...The purpose of my article was philosophical, so I deliberately avoided cluttering it with Scriptures. I trust people to have common sense and know the scriptural support for much of what I am saying. Not mentioning Scripture does not imply there is no Scriptural support. Some of what I'm saying has no direct scriptural support OR scriptural opposition, and is merely philosophically necessary (considering the arguments made in previous articles in the series, etc). But I rely on people mentioning in the comments if they have opposing Scriptural concepts to debate. This is how I approach other people's arguments too (unlike many philosophers) - understand the point their making, see if it fits with Scripture of not, and if not give reasons and wait for their explanation. I think this is an appropriate way of discussing, and was practiced by the early Christians including those who wrote the New Testament (although I don't deny they also importantly reasoned directly from Scriptures, as we do elsewhere). <br /><br />Regarding election, I have yet to hear of Scriptural opposition for the idea. The concepts people have raised so far, generally fit with my understanding of it anyway. I agree with God's desire to save all men (if you are not universalist, both Calvinists and Arminianists must wrestle with a greater desire of God trumping this one - a desire to preserve free will? A desire to maximise His glory? A desire to preserve Free Agency and His sovereignty? A desire to create certain characters through process, ready for joy in heaven once prepared?). I agree that election is often about groups of people.<br /><br />Determinists tend to describe faith as a 'work' which I think is misleading. When Paul refers to 'works of the Law' or 'works of the flesh' He is referring to self-righteousness, which (by definition) faith is not. We should call faith a 'meritous act' - something we do, which God ascribes merit to. This is fairly obvious from Scripture, I should think. Determinists reject it as a 'basis' for grace, because Scripture talks about faith itself as an outcome of grace. With this understanding, Romans 11 does talk about election of the individual. Besides, even if 'bending of the knee' did refer to faith as something we do prior to grace - the verse teaches that God chose apart from this, not because of it.<br /><br />In terms of the invitation not making sense, it makes sense if you re-phrase it like this: God is working to organise a revolution. He secretly scouts out and prepares select individuals for joining (e.g. string up dissatisfaction, national pride, giving them the location and password of a meeting). He then announces over the loudspeaker in the square: the time has come! None who come to the secret meeting will be rejected! Tonight we fight! Only the prepared ones want to and can come, but the universal invite still applies, and part of the point is the demonstration EVEN to those who won't come. I think Arminianism makes little sense of the invite if you truly understand free will. God wants all to be saved but doesn't do it because he wants to preserve some random choice-generating function of our souls that has no basis and so can't be moulded, and is unpredictable (why else would he create beings he knew would only ever go to hell?).Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02149662594350828627noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1971383925726802733.post-52304986014649589032014-03-27T14:49:16.432-07:002014-03-27T14:49:16.432-07:00All of redemptive history has been a progressive r...All of redemptive history has been a progressive revelation of God, ultimately working towards a culmination in Christ in heaven. Adam, Noah, Abraham all existed prior to Moses. All had progressive insight into Christ, but not enough know Him personally. Yet the Holy Spirit worked in their hearts to LOVE Christ with what they did know, and this faith worked itself out in obedience to God's values as He had currently revealed them. Moses was another step in this revelation - and the Law had the same purpose as all Gods previous and subsequent revelations, to demonstrate more aspects of Christ, for people to love, and to respond out of faith in obedience to the values He had currently expressed. Each step has added to the previous (not removed it), but has still resulted in changed methods of valuing God, because the total picture has still changed. With Moses God demonstrated more clearly His plan for a nation to represent Him in the world (this would be paused for a period later in history, i.e. now), and the faith response was to be obedience to the revealed Law (though even this was flexible under the more foundational rule of faith and love for God's values, as David demonstrated with the Shew bred and Jesus elaborated on).<br /><br />Christ came and revealed Himself further (although we still only know in part, as Paul states, and await the future full revelation of Christ in heaven). This revelation added to existing revelations and did NOT negate them, but it still changed the way we respond in faith because the total picture has changed. Christ introduced new values and a new phase of God's plan - one of multi-ethnic missional urgency, where the Jews were being provoked to Jealousy, and where many of the laws would not be followable. He also demonstrated that some laws had ceremonial significance in mimicking Him, and were no longer required. Finally He began the new testament trend of summarising the law in a set of attitudes which were of ultimate importance (not obedience to the letter), and elevating these attitudes to levels impossible to attain without the Holy Spirit. <br /><br />The Apostles expand on this revelation further, teaching that the Law's main purpose was to reveal, encourage, and lock people under sin - and then to lead them to Christ. It could not justify, and it could not sanctify. If you wanted justification, look to Christ. And if you wanted holiness, DON'T look to the law, look to Christ! They further summarised the law into a set of attitudes, and demonstrated how these Holy-Spirit wrought attitudes could play themselves out in a variety of flexible ways depending on the context - unlike in the mono-cultural Jewish phase of God's revelation (Moses). A big part of this was, again, deliberately avoiding a focus on the old testament Law EXCEPT to trap people under sin in preparation for Christ. So the scriptures (as they stand) are the most useful tool God has given us to see Christ, and thus we should measure everything else against them. But the goal is Christ, who is MORE than the scriptures. And I await His full revelation to me in heaven!Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02149662594350828627noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1971383925726802733.post-24185870715215895792014-03-27T14:48:55.597-07:002014-03-27T14:48:55.597-07:00I don't know what you were meaning about an un...I don't know what you were meaning about an unbroken genealogy to the early church, though I'm keen to know what you mean since church history is a keen interest of mine. With all of God's Scriptures, most believers will have aspects of misinterpretation of its very intentions and its details (myself included). This was true in Paul's time too (look at Corinth). So while Jewish tradition and early church culture is important, neither should not inform our opinion of how God wants us to interpret Scripture. Instead Christ should. The 'Torah' is not the same as Jewishness since the Jews get this wrong just as much as the Gentiles (both early and late church). I'm not saying to ignore the Torah, but to USE it without cultural biases to find what christ wants. Obviously this is not entirely possible (i have my own biases and they're not easy to combat or even detect!), but a worthwhile aim.<br /><br />I believe we should have passion for Christ, and not mainly for his written word. Its a subtle difference - like the difference between faith in Christ or faith in our faith. Or the difference between worshiping Christ or worshiping the emotional experience of a worship service. Obviously none of these three things are bad, but they are all subservient to Christ - passion for His word in this way is good, but it opens you up to prioritising appropriately. Let me explain why I believe the Torah is subjective to Christ. I hope to expand further on this in a future article, which I'm still working on! Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02149662594350828627noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1971383925726802733.post-66502572334465308912014-03-27T14:47:02.497-07:002014-03-27T14:47:02.497-07:00The translation of Col 3:14 is about love (agape) ...The translation of Col 3:14 is about love (agape) tying everything into completeness - but both the words used for 'tying' and for 'completeness' have connotations of unity and harmony. Also the context is how church is a body of people where differences require forgiveness and humility and compassion and patience, and Paul's point is that love is the most important factor in their unity.<br /><br />The wording used in 1 Cor 1:10 is to have the same 'mind' and 'judgement'. Other Biblical passages demonstrate that 'mind' refers to attitudes, desires, postures. 1 Co 2:16 makes most sense if this is the case. 2 Co 3:14 only makes sense this way. Phil 2:5 makes this most clear (showing us what Christ's 'mind' was). 'Judgement' refers to your aims and resolve and is intrinsically linked to this concept of mind (doesn't really fit well with a doctrine definition of mind unless you add desires onto it). Again the context is an appeal for unity and love and humility in the midst of divisions arising over minor differences in teachers (which presumably included differences in doctrine, or at least in emphasis of doctrines). What He is asking is for us to look at the commonality in spirit and heart (demonstrating common regeneration, since they are wrought by the Holy Spirit), to all attempt to posture ourselves like Christ, and as a result to have the same resolve (which, He contends, should include a resolve for unity and love in the face of doctrinal differences).<br /><br />As with other passages in scripture - the biblical concept of knowledge often includes familiar experience, and the highest definition of truth is in fact the concrete revelation of Christ. Although I think this includes head knowledge and 'doctrine', I think this is merely one facet to something much bigger. In the context of 1Ti 2:3-4 I think Paul is wanting everyone to come to love Christ, not have same doctrine.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02149662594350828627noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1971383925726802733.post-36664975809571141702014-03-27T14:45:54.866-07:002014-03-27T14:45:54.866-07:00Hi again ND - I don't think the Bible or exper...Hi again ND - I don't think the Bible or experience (let alone God's instructions about persuing unity) supports a 'black and white' interpretation of Scripture. Whatever messages God wants to express in His word are definitely discoverable by His Spirit. But there are messages that He does NOT intend from His word, which leaves us with pillars of truth we struggle to connect together. God wants us to hold fast to the pillars (e.g. His justice, His love, Christ's divinity) but may not want us to have the details. It is in these areas that we can speculate but ultimately no one can be black and white because GOD is not black and white in Scripture. A lot of 'dividing' doctrines in church are actually man's interpretations of the gaps between Christ's teachings (e.g. determinism or non-determinism). Such speculated differences should not destroy unity - if all still love Christ and the pillars of revelation about God that He DOES make clear. <br /><br />Even in the messages God intends to be black and white, we rely on His Spirit for perfect interpretation. God wants this (but clearly there are other desires that trump this, because we do not have it yet), but also desires us to love and be united with our brethren and to have humility on the basis of the realities of imperfect holiness and imperfect interpretation of Scripture. Unfortunately, NO SINGLE PERSON on earth has been 100% submitted to the Spirit, therefore ALL of our interpretations are flawed somewhere, and we won't know where (unless God reveals it). This is why salvation and faith and sanctification and unity are based on the desires and attitudes of our heart (love for Christ, etc) rather than doctrine. The activity of the Holy Spirit is much more focussed on these things than on doctrine. I believe doctrine is important, but for other reasons.<br /><br />Regarding Christ coming to cause division - He talked of being a cause for division between His people and the world, not between His people themselves. Also, it wasn't His 'doctrine', but His person that would cause this division. People hated Him or loved Him. Yes, His doctrine was part of that, but definitely not all of it. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02149662594350828627noreply@blogger.com