Monday, November 9, 2015

5228  Forums / Theology Forum / Re: Second Baptism on: April 07, 2009, 10:03:05 AM
Thanks Jim, that was a good summary.

Tom (MBG),

I know you didn't ask me, but I would say that sin does break the fellowship that we have with God but not the relationship. A believer who finds himself/herself in this place should confess (say same thing as God or agree with God) their sin unto the Father, who will be faithful and just to forgive their sin and cleanse them from all unrighteousness.


This is a practical, temporal forgiveness not a positional, legal forgiveness. I as you often reason from our position in Christ but there is the practical aspect of walking in the Spirit as a believer and confession is a part of this.

Bill
Well there are a few things here. First the requirement to confess our sins does not relieve us of all of the debt we owe about our sins. And if we were to think that God is counting our sins in order to meet the requirement in number then we would never have assurance that God is not mad at us. So that teaching that our sin is a matter of holding peace with God or a required intimacy is not biblical. John says if we confess our sins he is faith and just to forgive us of our sins. If we say that we have no sin we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us.  Hes simply saying as the apostle ... that we must see ourselves as sinners unable to meet the standard of debt....i mean in the attitude we have about ourselves. As the apostle says for what i want to do i do not do and what i do not want to do that i do. So that a believer is one who is troubled by his sin and knows that Christ is his only hope for pardon.  Now that is a bit different in the way its worked out from my view to Jims view.
First i dont believe that grace is up and down. Grace is what we live in on a daily basis. So the sin issue has been taken care of even if we have failed miserably or we are having a hard time with a particular sin. The issue is not sin..but the kind of heart we have toward sin. So that we could be sinning worse and be closer to God in our attitude.  So i dont agree with the whole philosophy of re dedication. What do we need to do that has not already been done by Christ? Our determination is not going to make it any better. I believe this kind of re dedication philosophy is detrimental to learning a disposition of grace and thus is like five point arminism in its flavor.

If a person is struggling with sin... then it does not mean that he has lost anything. Now if a person over a long period of time grows distant and gets hard hear ted then there are some requirements of self examination... and then its just a matter of confessing and moving on. We should make a lot of room for growth without making the sin issue bigger than it is in matters of being in a dangerous position.
ReplyReply Reply with quoteQuote Notify of repliesNotify
5229  Forums / Theology Forum / Re: I committed adultery as a Christian on: April 07, 2009, 09:39:22 AM
I had a good wife.   She came from an old-school tradition which thought women should be quiet and not pray out loud.   So while she showed signs of being the believer she claimed to be, in the 10 years we were together she did not pray with me or go to church.   And she grew very overweight and unclean.  So I was turned off and not able to fulfill my obligations to her for the last year of our relationship.

It was here where the temptation came in.   I met a wonderful woman with whom I clicked as never before and she with me.   It was if we had the same soul and knew each other.   I quickly lost count of the many times we were not even together and simultaneously contacted each other about the same thought.   As you may guess, the magnetism between us ran off the charts and we knew we loved each other months before we said anything.   To make the story shorter. . . this grew into the most intense love either of us had experienced and it also flourished in physical union. 

My wife at the time was hurt and rightfully angry.   I tried all I could to renounce the feelings for this new woman who had become my very breath, but I could not.   My wife was willing to forgive me and give me a second chance, but I again could not walk away from this new woman with whom I shared more in common with than anyone I had ever met.   While I loved my wife, I love this new woman more. 

Even after much prayer and looking for loopholes in the Scriptures, I divorced my wife and married my new partner.   I did this at 50+ years of age, having known Christ since the age of 6. 

My new marriage is flourishing and my new wife has renewed her commitment to Christ.   However, reading the Scriptures talks about those who commit adultery will not inherit the Kingdom of God.   I know I sinned.   I also feel badly for what I did to my previous wife.   But I have no repentance for loving my new wife.   Is there hope for my new wife and I, since, as a believer, I chose to walk away from my earlier marriage vows.   My new wife feels badly too but also very committed to me and this, our new marriage. 

From what I have learned about the unpardonable sin, I don't think this is it.   However, can we ever be right with Jesus again?  Will the Grace of Jesus cover even this sin?
I long to be right again with God.   Please help and give some scripture references to
help back up what you are saying.   Thank you.

Ts... we can do a lot of foolish things... one of them is to betray our covenants before God. But there is no sin that is big enough that can inhibit our relationship with our Savior. Now there are a few things here. Since you have betrayed your covenant then its much easier for you to find yourself in the same situation again. So there is only one thing that is required and that is to seek to find peace with God through worship... prayer and the sacraments. The one thing that God teaches us through out our lives ... and even more if we have failed miserably is that sin and temptation should draw us closer to Christ rather than cause us to drift away. But if we believe  that its because Christ has done the work in order for us to be pure... then there is forever an new and living way for us to approach the throne of God with boldness. But if we believe that His work only did half and we must do something in order to meet a requirement to go to the throne of grace then we will never have assurance. If Christ work is not sufficient for all sin... then we have not seen the value of His work for all sin. That is a sin.
So that every time there is guilt over this issue... then we should preach to ourselves the work of Christ on our behalf. There are all kinds of teaching out there that will try to get you to do something in order to get grace... but Christ has already done everything. When we struggle with sin and temptation that should teach us that our lives are not our own... we truely belong to someone else. And we should use this trial as an reminder to give Him all of the praise and worship Him as we in our debt of love. One thing is important....it is learning forgiveness.  
ReplyReply Reply with quoteQuote Notify of repliesNotify
5230  Forums / Theology Forum / Re: Second Baptism on: April 06, 2009, 03:32:22 PM

The point of re-dedication is the resoration of intimacy of the relationship.  And please, don't be so persumptuous to suggest that because I don't teach what you think I teach (or should teach) that I'm "slipping".  And no, I don't teach that someone has to be saved and re-saved and re-saved all over again.  If you're going to try to talk about what I believe, KNOW what I believe FIRST.




So i mean it seems to me we are playing with words. Ok so where is this concept in scripture about intimacy? I mean is the word intimacy in  the scripture. I thought the biblical concept was fellowship. Ok now i am really confused. Set me straight pastor.... please.
ReplyReply Reply with quoteQuote Notify of repliesNotify
5231  Forums / Theology Forum / Re: Second Baptism on: April 06, 2009, 03:25:55 PM

If, by the word "fellowship" above, you're asking me if I teach that a believer loses his/her relationship with God, the answer is no.

This, however, is off-topic from what the original post and question was.  The point I'm making in regards to what you wrote is - What the Pentecostals teach regarding this "second work" has little to do with re-dedication or assurance as you've written about.  It's more about the ideas of "turning on spiritual power", "being permeated by the Spirit", "being immersed in the Spirit" - they use all kinds of phrases to talk about this.  


Jim

 Well if like you have just said that you dont teach that sin blocks fellowship with God then whats the point of re dedication? And if in fact you dont teach this... then you are slipping. Oh and it has everything to do in my comparison. Grin Because if you lose assurance because of unrepentant sin then you need to be saved all over again. 
ReplyReply Reply with quoteQuote Notify of repliesNotify
5232  Forums / Theology Forum / Re: Second Baptism on: April 06, 2009, 03:17:16 PM
You could equate the second baptism ie assemblies of God.... to the re dedication of the fundamentalist. Also...it could be the same as the dedication of a sprinkling. A special work of grace. One of the arguments for this idea of going further... or the extra... is that you can find it in all denominations.
The old Calvinist used to call it an assurance... more than just a salvation experience. They would even ask if the person had that kind of assurance.


No - If you read what the A.o.G. and other Pentecostal churches teach regarding this "second baptism" or "second work", there really is not an equating between that and someone making a re-dedication, or an infant dedication service, or an infant baptism service.

Jim

Actually since you make reference to things that i did not say or have any thing to do with the comparative point i was making. If you look ... i was strictly talking about assurance in the matter of experience.I know for a fact that pastors such as yourself teach that sin blocks fellowship with God and you lose your assurance... its close to and confused with losing your salvation....i mean it has the same flavor. So that a person repents by coming forward promising not to do the sin he repented of and he rededicates his life so that he can get his assurance back. Uh ...it sounds like a second work of grace to me. Yes... i had a lot of experience with this type of religion.  Grin

Actually I made reference to three things that you talked about.  I know the teaching regarding those three things in both Baptist and Pentecostal and Lutheran traditions, and I know that they really cannot be equated as you've suggested.  And, contrary to what you write, I myself make careful and clear distinction between loss of assurance and loss of salvation.  And no, helping a person with assurance, or a re-dedication is not the same thing as what Pentecostals teach regarding this "second work" that they call the Baptism in/with/by the Spirit.


Jim


 But you teach that you can lose your fellowship with God rite? I think is like God cant look on sin... and He needs more from you ... so if you repent then your fellowship will be restored... but until then your stuck.
ReplyReply Reply with quoteQuote Notify of repliesNotify
5233  Forums / Main Forum / Re: Catholic Question about John 6 on: April 06, 2009, 03:09:00 PM
The bible says that you must worship Christ in spirit. If you have a physical element that must be purified in order to be a means of grace... then that is a thing that is physical that you worship. The bible forbids this kind of intermediate worship. This is why there is only one mediator between God and man.... that is the man Jesus Christ. But Christ... the whole body and has ascended to heaven and is seated at the rite hand of God. He is our mediator... in a spiritual worship only. There is no other sacrifice that is acceptable. The only reason that they want you to believe that the bread is His body is because they want you to believe that He infuses new righteousness into you by the purity of the elements. This is heresy.
ReplyReply Reply with quoteQuote Notify of repliesNotify
5234  Forums / Theology Forum / Re: Second Baptism on: April 06, 2009, 03:00:42 PM
You could equate the second baptism ie assemblies of God.... to the re dedication of the fundamentalist. Also...it could be the same as the dedication of a sprinkling. A special work of grace. One of the arguments for this idea of going further... or the extra... is that you can find it in all denominations.
The old Calvinist used to call it an assurance... more than just a salvation experience. They would even ask if the person had that kind of assurance.


No - If you read what the A.o.G. and other Pentecostal churches teach regarding this "second baptism" or "second work", there really is not an equating between that and someone making a re-dedication, or an infant dedication service, or an infant baptism service.



Jim

Actually since you make reference to things that i did not say or have any thing to do with the comparative point i was making. If you look ... i was strictly talking about assurance in the matter of experience.I know for a fact that pastors such as yourself teach that sin blocks fellowship with God and you lose your assurance... its close to and confused with losing your salvation....i mean it has the same flavor. So that a person repents by coming forward promising not to do the sin he repented of and he rededicates his life so that he can get his assurance back. Uh ...it sounds like a second work of grace to me. Yes... i had a lot of experience with this type of religion.  Grin
ReplyReply Reply with quoteQuote Notify of repliesNotify
5235  Forums / Theology Forum / Re: Second Baptism on: April 06, 2009, 02:02:00 PM
Jim,

That is what I have believed as well.

I Cor. 12:13 speaks of all believers being baptized by the Holy Spirit into Christ.

It is rather difficult for me to try to equate this baptism with that spoken of where Jesus is said to baptize believers with the Holy Spirit.

If we go back to the original where the word meant to immerse or dip, then maybe both are part of the salvation expereince; the Spirit immerses us into Christ while Jesus does the same in relation to the Spirit. Like you said, this would all seem to occur at the time of salvation.

Bill

Bill in my experience of salvation and then the consequent full immersion at the age of 7 ...plus having been a reformed baptist and attending a number of water baptism... i think that this event is a work of grace. I mean ... it was a big event for me at seven... climbing the steps at Riverside Baptist Church in miami... and then public ally making a witness that i was a believer. I dont think that just my salvation experience completed that cycle of grace in which there was a different kind assurance at my baptism.
In these different denominational circumstances the teaching is directed in a certain way to either down play the experience part and make the commitment the center of the experience or like the second baptism to make it all experience and direct assurance.  But there is so much mystery here as to what goes on in the experience that people get confused in being taught a certain way. In the early church and the account of acts there was a certain flavor to all what the Holy Spirit was doing as a way of assurance in these events. I think we need to focus on that flavor more than our view of fundamentalism as compared to charismatics.   
5251  Forums / Theology Forum / Re: Second Baptism on: April 05, 2009, 05:32:25 PM
The Holy Spirit is God. He gifts people according to His will. He came in power in the baptism of Christ as the witness as Christ was headed to the dessert to be tempted at the start of His ministry.He came in power. So that the Spirit is the Spirit of power. Then as Christ was speaking to His disciples after His resurrection He promised to bring the comforter. Now this kind of promise was filled with more of the goodness of God than had ever been experienced by any disciple. This was a promise of power to be given to the 12 .. one to join them. So Christ was sealed with the Holy Spirit of power and then He gave His disciples this seal... or testimony at Pentecost. I do not believe in the Charismatic view of the second baptism. First i dont believe this is a consistent experience. It is strictly an experience and does not necessarily have anything to do with the level of sanctification of a believer. But it does increase the speed of the sanctification process. There are many evidences of the baptism of Christ giving the Spirit other than tongs. He came in various ways to the church in acts and there were different manifestations.
Sometimes there was predicting the future. Sometimes there was speaking a word of God. Sometimes there was speaking the word in power. Sometimes there were tongues- i believe these were other languages but they came in the way of ecstatic experience and was like a new word. But the Spirit says that in the last days He will be poured out and men will be speaking in tongs ...prophesying.etc. So that when the Spirit was coming in this way... He was manifested in a way that He does not manifest in salvation. He comes in power and then all of the people are experiencing this profound experience as if there was a rain of God coming down on a group. And then there was this profound unity that attended this reviving of the Spirit.
Everyone looked as if they were drunk on wine... but it was the Spirit coming down with power and then all the people were experiencing this power that did not come from within but it was something that come on them and then they were immediately infused with this rejoicing and this unity. Its as if the Spirit came as He willed and heaven came down upon them in the crowd.

These are the very origins of the church. How could there be this united strength without the whole cannon formed? It was this baptism of the Spirit. They were swallowed up in a glorious unity that was focused on the apostles doctrine.. the fellowship... breaking of bread. But they were experiencing this deep rejoicing and it was accompanied with all of these different manifestations. That is why there were efforts to copy the manifestations of the Spirit.This also has happened at different times in post biblical church history. You have this in wales and then it spread to England .. then the United States in the great awakening. 
ReplyReply Reply with quoteQuote Notify of repliesNotify
5252  Forums / Main Forum / Re: Catholic Question about John 6 on: April 05, 2009, 05:11:16 PM


The meaning is in the context. Now in the ot the Psalmist says Taste and see that the Lord is good. And then there is the parallelism Blessed is the man who takes refuge in Him. So then its not a physical taste here spoken of. Maybe we could give it a secondary meaning to the physical since food comes from the hand of God. But the next verse is a command to fear the Lord you righteous. So that since a man dwells in the righteousness that is imputed then that mans understanding is renewed with divine sense of the goodness of the Lord. Or it is the divine infusion of Gods causing all things to work for the good. A man who has spiritual understanding has the nature of the goodness of God as the cause of His apprehending Christ as the object of that Goodness.
Now the bread from Heaven is a reference to he manna in the ot. Instead of feeding Israel with goods taken from the wicked in Ejypt.... of which God did on a number of occasions, God provided the only food that was available. In other words they traveled lite and looked to God for their well being. Instead of transporting the rations. And i think this is a reference to Christ coming from His eternal Sonship and becoming a man... a Son of many sons. He is our brother ...being fully human and having to be made perfect by the things He suffered. So that as a man He has the understanding of a brother. The bread is the spiritual food we get that results in this infusion of the union we have with Him in His identifying with us as our brother and God. Its feeding on Him through the word. He is the bread from Heaven. 

Hmmm, let me think about that as i'm out walking my three dogs.

 Smiley
As you can see ... i am deeply involved in Hebrews at this time ... and this thing about Him being our brother has really been interesting to me. I will assimilate this.
ReplyReply Reply with quoteQuote Notify of repliesNotify
5253  Forums / Main Forum / Re: Catholic Question about John 6 on: April 05, 2009, 04:58:51 PM
The questions are great and i am enjoying this. If i had the time we could go all day on this thread. Thanks for keeping the thought lines open. I hope that you will continue this kind of thread.  Cheesy

Oh, i'm not content to remain in ignorance about the Bread of Life (as i currently am).  I'm not going anywhere until i have my answer, or until everyone gives up seeking the truth with me.

 Smiley

The meaning is in the context. Now in the ot the Psalmist says Taste and see that the Lord is good. And then there is the parallelism Blessed is the man who takes refuge in Him. So then its not a physical taste here spoken of. Maybe we could give it a secondary meaning to the physical since food comes from the hand of God. But the next verse is a command to fear the Lord you righteous. So that since a man dwells in the righteousness that is imputed then that mans understanding is renewed with divine sense of the goodness of the Lord. Or it is the divine infusion of Gods causing all things to work for the good. A man who has spiritual understanding has the nature of the goodness of God as the cause of His apprehending Christ as the object of that Goodness.
Now the bread from Heaven is a reference to the manna in the ot. Instead of feeding Israel with goods taken from the wicked in Ejypt.... of which God did on a number of occasions, God provided the only food that was available. In other words they traveled lite and looked to God for their well being. Instead of transporting the rations. And i think this is a reference to Christ coming from His eternal Sonship and becoming a man... a Son of many sons. He is our brother ...being fully human and having to be made perfect by the things He suffered. So that as a man He has the understanding of a brother. The bread is the spiritual food we get that results in this infusion of the union we have with Him in His identifying with us as our brother and God. Its feeding on Him through the word. He is the bread from Heaven. 
ReplyReply Reply with quoteQuote Notify of repliesNotify
5254  Forums / Main Forum / Re: Catholic Question about John 6 on: April 05, 2009, 04:44:09 PM
... I got a question for you since it would be interesting to see how you think. Is it rite to be uncertain about the doctrines of grace?

Good question!  If by right you mean virtuous, i'd say, that depends.  To know the truth and to live according to the truth one knows, it seems to me, is always good.  Yet, there are some truths of which one does not yet know fully, and so the virtuous thing to do, in this case, is to seek the truth.  So, i'd say it is never virtuous to be uncertain of the truth and content to stay that way.  But there is no sin in being uncertain about the truth, but taking every step to understand, or at least apprehend.

So, if your question is, "Is it virtuous to be uncertain about the doctrines of grace and content to stay that way," i'd say, unequivocally, "No, never!"  If your question, on the other hand, is, "Is it virtuous to be uncertain about the doctrines of grace, but never content to remain in ignorance?" i'd say, unequivocally, "Yes! as long as one takes every opportunity to learn what he does not yet know."

This is absolutely a delight to read.  Wink
ReplyReply Reply with quoteQuote Notify of repliesNotify
5255  Forums / Main Forum / Re: Catholic Question about John 6 on: April 05, 2009, 04:21:49 PM

 We can trust in them as God because of we focus on one then we see the other. If we are in Christ then we share in the Trinitarian fellowship. If you have seen Me then you have seen the Father. Sorry but its more important for me that we get to thinking rite and not just getting to a point.



MBG:

I do believe that's the shortest yes i've every seen you write! 

LOL!  Cheesy

Yes, i agree that in trusting one person of the Trinity, we trust all three.  So, then, the words, "We are saved by grace alone, through faith alone, in Jesus Christ alone," require some explanation, lest someone misunderstand or misrepresent the gospel. 

The questions are great and i am enjoying this. If i had the time we could go all day on this thread. Thanks for keeping the thought lines open. I hope that you will continue this kind of thread.  Cheesy
ReplyReply Reply with quoteQuote Notify of repliesNotify
5256  Forums / Main Forum / Re: Catholic Question about John 6 on: April 05, 2009, 04:02:00 PM

God is one in essence and three in Persons... The Father who works all things into time by the word of His mouth ...in a disposition of love... The Son who is the image of God and came to redeem some men... and the Spirit who is whatever Gods attributes are... and the witness to all of these things. These two realities are side by side in scripture and are the definition of the Trinity.

When we are speaking about salvation in the context of coming from God ... we are speaking of His rite to will who is to be saved. Because salvation is not in the will of man... salvation is a work of God ... alone. It was planned in the counsel in eternity that the Trinity would function in perfect unity to obtain salvation for the purpose of the goodness and glory of God... so that man would be saved. The accomplishment of that work was performed in time and salvation was secured in that work of the Trinity to be transferred in time to those whom  God decided before hand to lavish salvation upon. Salvation is all of God.
When Christ became a man ... He offered Himself as the sacrifice for sin... He came to accomplish the Fathers will so that He would be an acceptable sacrifice and appease the Gods wrath ... He took the full wrath of God and was the only acceptable sacrifice for sin. There is no other way to God than through Christ. Christ offered Himself and obtained purification for sin... Christ destroyed the works of the Devil at the cross... and concurred death so that He saved those who all their lives were under the bondage to the fear of death. He did this in becoming a man. This is not only for the purpose of redeeming man ... but for the purpose of raising the dead from spiritual death. He not only gives eternal life but He also gives the gift of faith in order to apprehend eternal life. Again... all of the works from a corrupted source are dead works. That is any thing in this universe that is contaminated with sin. 

I apprehend, but i'm still hoping for an answer to my question. It's as though you and i are sitting on the rocky peak of a mountain overlooking a vast, and breathtaking forest in the valley below. 

And i take out a sack full of berries i've picked during our climb up the mountain, and i ask, "Tell me, MBG, are these berries poisonous?" 

And you respond, with a theatrical gesture of your left hand, "There are many edible berries, which are far from poisonous. Just gaze on the forest in the valley below; as far as the eyes can see the berries are ripe for the picking!" 

My reply would be, "Yes, but what about THESE berries in my hand? I'm hungry after our long trek up the mountain trail; should i eat them?  Please tell me, 'yes' or 'no.'"

Now, my question will not take much time to answer, for a simple yes or no is all that i ask. That question, once again, is this: Is it possible to trust Christ for my salvation and, at the same time, NOT trust the Father or the Holy Spirit for my salvation?



 We can trust in them as God because of we focus on one then we see the other. If we are in Christ then we share in the Trinitarian fellowship. If you have seen Me then you have seen the Father. Sorry but its more important for me that we get to thinking rite and not just getting to a point.

I got a question for you since it would be interesting to see how you think. Is it rite to be uncertain about the doctrines of grace?
ReplyReply Reply with quoteQuote Notify of repliesNotify
5257  Forums / Main Forum / Re: Catholic Question about John 6 on: April 05, 2009, 01:03:13 PM
... In this way we are passive. Because salvation is described as the root of the word implanted. That is the communication of the very word of God is God breathed life. This is why the activity of the word is sanctifying. So that in this metaphorical Trinitarianism we are under an obligation to think of the cause outside of ourselves that works in us and not from within and coming from us. These paradigms as they are presented in scripture are sola. Grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone. In this way we believe that the human activity of participation in the sacraments is dead works because it comes from a corrupted source. Only the grace received is fully effective.   

Perhaps, but according to your reasoning (i.e., the sound argument that you and i can't have one without the other two) is it not more accurate to interpret

Quote
For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God—not by works, so that no one can boast. For we are God's workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.

(Ephesians 2:8-10)

this way?  We are saved by grace alone, through faith alone, in Jesus Christ AND the Father AND the Holy Spirit together (but not alone).  I mean, you and i cannot put our trust in Christ, but at the same time refuse to trust the Father or the Spirit, can we?


God is one in essence and three in Persons... The Father who works all things into time by the word of His mouth ...in a disposition of love... The Son who is the image of God and came to redeem some men... and the Spirit who is whatever Gods attributes are... and the witness to all of these things. These two realities are side by side in scripture and are the definition of the Trinity.

When we are speaking about salvation in the context of coming from God ... we are speaking of His rite to will who is to be saved. Because salvation is not in the will of man... salvation is a work of God ... alone. It was planned in the counsel in eternity that the Trinity would function in perfect unity to obtain salvation for the purpose of the goodness and glory of God... so that man would be saved. The accomplishment of that work was performed in time and salvation was secured in that work of the Trinity to be transferred in time to those whom  God decided before hand to lavish salvation upon. Salvation is all of God.
When Christ became a man ... He offered Himself as the sacrifice for sin... He came to accomplish the Fathers will so that He would be an acceptable sacrifice and appease the Gods wrath ... He took the full wrath of God and was the only acceptable sacrifice for sin. There is no other way to God than through Christ. Christ offered Himself and obtained purification for sin... Christ destroyed the works of the Devil at the cross... and concurred death so that He saved those who all their lives were under the bondage to the fear of death. He did this in becoming a man. This is not only for the purpose of redeeming man ... but for the purpose of raising the dead from spiritual death. He not only gives eternal life but He also gives the gift of faith in order to apprehend eternal life. Again... all of the works from a corrupted source are dead works. That is any thing in this universe that is contaminated with sin. 
ReplyReply Reply with quoteQuote Notify of repliesNotify
5258  Forums / Theology Forum / Re: predestination on: April 05, 2009, 12:42:22 PM
Well, Learning to Learn, what I meant was that I don't think God predestines one person to heaven and another to hell, at least not in the way that idea is usually proposed. It's more like what happened with King Saul or (back in Exodus) with Pharaoh. Jesus gave Pilate and Judas every opportunity to do the right thing. The whole question of predestination is actually the question of God's supreme will vs. man's will. I think it's the wrong question. My personal experience is that when I made the decision to accept Jesus it was by my own free will, yet now, looking back, I see that God actually chose me. He's been guiding my life, even when I was ignoring Him. Yet I positively know that I made the decision for Christ. How can it be both? Well, maybe it's the wrong question. The facts are that 1. God is supreme and 2. I have free will. That's what I was thinking at 1 am the other day.

It sounds like you are saying... i dont like Calvinism because thats not how i experienced it. There are a lot of reasons we may decide from one day to the next. Some that do not have any relation to salvation. We dont proof text scripture by our own experience.

1.  Calvinism is not scripture.
2.  I am saying that God is supreme. Our human viewpoint shows us that we have free will.
3.  Adam (& Pharaoh & King Saul & King David & Judas & Pilate & you & me) had every opportunity to do the right thing. He chose to eat the apple.
4.  The whole thing is God's will. He predestined the universe. So my free will is a part of that design.
5.  The question of predestination is the question of whether God's will is supreme, or is my free will able to counter God's will. I think that it is the wrong question. God designed us. He knows us. He knew what Adam would do and so planned for a messiah to redeem us. He knew what Pharaoh would do and so planned the Passover.
6.  We see it as 'predestination' because of our perception of time. When God planned the Passover, He did it when he planned the universe. Like I said before, God is Supreme and I have free will. Trying to reconcile those two points within the 'scientific' view of the world leads to confusion. 
7.  Whatever you finally decide, just make sure God gets all the glory.

I am saying that your position on free will is not biblical. If i were to tell you that the apple was blue... but it was also red then you would say that these two realities cannot be in the same thing at the same time.  Your definition of free will is that man has the ability to be free in the sense that God does not decree an event to pass ....prior to man choosing for the purpose of the event to come to pass.I am saying to you that your philosophy holds to a contradiction. Your view of freedom comes from a cause that is not contingent. You are teaching in your view of the will being free in having two equal choices without any prior inclination..... that the expression of free will is no will at all. At the same time you are presenting a God that does not exist in the working out of the action as a succession of events that are real events in time. So that if you put all the events in time in an ordered sequence then there is no connection in time to the purpose of Gods existence and mans choice. In essence you are denying the reality of being in a causal sense.... in the reality of time. If you want i can go further on my explanation. Or maybe some of those who have been taking participation in these disagreements can bring in further explanations.

 WH.... you dont need to simplify with me. I can accept the connection between what you believe and what you practice as the focus. I know you like to separate the practical with the theoretical (i use these two terms because i dont think you are offering me a Theological position.)in order to use it as an argument for your position in your contradiction. But really ... dont be afraid to ask questions. This is very complicated as we spend all of our lives focused on the gospel and great amounts of time studying it ... so that we will not drift away. Thats what the reality of the gospel is as well as simple.

Ps 33
 4 For the word of the LORD is right and true;
       he is faithful in all he does.

Is there anything that He does not do? The rest of the Psalm should answer this question.

 5 The LORD loves righteousness and justice;
       the earth is full of his unfailing love.

 6 By the word of the LORD were the heavens made,
       their starry host by the breath of his mouth.

 7 He gathers the waters of the sea into jars [a] ;
       he puts the deep into storehouses.

 8 Let all the earth fear the LORD;
       let all the people of the world revere him.

 9 For he spoke, and it came to be;
       he commanded, and it stood firm.

 10 The LORD foils the plans of the nations;
       he thwarts the purposes of the peoples.

 11 But the plans of the LORD stand firm forever,
       the purposes of his heart through all generations.

 12 Blessed is the nation whose God is the LORD,
       the people he chose for his inheritance.

 13 From heaven the LORD looks down
       and sees all mankind;

 14 from his dwelling place he watches
       all who live on earth-

 15 he who forms the hearts of all,
       who considers everything they do.

 16 No king is saved by the size of his army;
       no warrior escapes by his great strength.

 17 A horse is a vain hope for deliverance;
       despite all its great strength it cannot save.

 18 But the eyes of the LORD are on those who fear him,
       on those whose hope is in his unfailing love,

 19 to deliver them from death
       and keep them alive in famine.

 20 We wait in hope for the LORD;
       he is our help and our shield.

 21 In him our hearts rejoice,
       for we trust in his holy name.

 22 May your unfailing love rest upon us, O LORD,
       even as we put our hope in you. 

I love this Psalm... its a sweet meditation.  
ReplyReply Reply with quoteQuote Notify of repliesNotify
5259  Forums / Main Forum / Re: Catholic Question about John 6 on: April 04, 2009, 01:43:58 PM

Well there is an OT concept here about the word drink. Drink is the reality of whatever your object of the desire is. The bible talks about having spiritual senses just like physical senses. The spiritual senses are not a natural gift from birth. They are given at the new birth. So that when we say a man believes ... describing the belief as apprehending Christ as the only object of His receiving.. we are saying that the man had his eyes open... not his physical eyes.. and He began to hear Christ voice... he tasted of  the Lord... and he has a sense of His felt presence. ...

Thank you, MBG, for bringing your BIG ideas down to size so that little-minded me might finally understand!  Please tell me if i'm apprehending your thoughts, correctly.  Are you saying that Jesus is using the word drink as a metaphor for believing in Him, and receiving Him, for He is the object of our deepest desires?




 Metaphors are only as good as describing something that is real in comparison to physical things. But there also is not a good way of hermeneutics to use metaphors in finding the deeper meaning. For all of the scripture is of the unity of the Trinity and is not to be divided up. Salvation is in the Trinity alone... so that all the communication of these saving effects are of Trinitarian activity. In this way we are passive. Because salvation is described as the root of the word implanted. That is the communication of the very word of God is God breathed life. This is why the activity of the word is sanctifying. So that in this metaphorical Trinitarianism we are under an obligation to think of the cause outside of ourselves that works in us and not from within and coming from us. These paradigms as they are presented in scripture are sola. Grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone. In this way we believe that the human activity of participation in the sacraments is dead works because it comes from a corrupted source. Only the grace received is fully effective.   
ReplyReply Reply with quoteQuote Notify of repliesNotify
5260  Forums / Main Forum / Re: Catholic Question about John 6 on: April 02, 2009, 07:52:57 PM
If anyone else has a guess, please don't be shy!  Let me know what the word drink truly means in Jesus' words to the party girl in John, chapter 4.  Maybe then i'll be able to figure out what the words drink and eat mean when He talked about drinking His blood and eating His flesh in John, chapter 6. 

 Smiley


Well there is an OT concept here about the word drink. Drink is the reality of whatever your object of the desire is. The bible talks about having spiritual senses just like physical senses. The spiritual senses are not a natural gift from birth. They are given at the new birth. So that when we say a man believes ... describing the belief as apprehending Christ as the only object of His receiving.. we are saying that the man had his eyes open... not his physical eyes.. and He began to hear Christ voice... he tasted of  the Lord... and he has a sense of His felt presence. Now the physical world is the realm of all of the trouble that comes into the soul. That is what the scripture calls the whole realm of the flesh. I mean the presence of sin and the physical parts are called the flesh in scripture. So that we say a man is corrupted in all of his parts. But these spiritual senses are of the nature of Christ. And even  tho the object is not fully revealed... yet the spiritual senses can never be the reason for sin. The mixture of these other paradigms in the soul in the meta physical realm bring about sorrow. Like guilt..shame...fear... hatred and hardness. This is mixed with these spiritual senses.... or realities .. having been apprehended in our understanding. So that on the one hand we can never satisfy our renewed desires on this earth. Like the apostle says "I have not apprehended it yet." And so we experience sorrow mixed with joy. Christ says that those who worship Him will worship Him in spirit and truth. We set up idols in the physical realm. 
Reply

No comments:

Post a Comment