Sovereignty of God and Moral Responsibility of Man

[Elin]

I agree with most all you have taught. Limited atonement is still not settling with me yet.
Although i find since im prolly 99% monergists maybe im wrong about the 1%. Cant sit on
uncle finnys lap...so im working on that.

I totally dont like your use of Romans 9.

I think your understanding of Ro 9 is driven by another issue.

It is clearly about the sovereignty of God in salvation, regarding the Jews as well as all men (Ro 9:18, 27, 30-33).

But have a truckload of clearer verses that
show God is sovereign and decreed all before creation....etc. So[in otherwords
most, not all scriptural use i like. And most, not all conclusions come out the same. So far.

Ill admit i could have taken a cc break to work out these issues that i didnt know i had.
And i also understand im being highly critical of all you write at least lately. And thats
gotta cause something im sure. But im trying to be objective and see the points being made.

Oh i sure do agree that "everything" is controlled by Gods will. Im just a tad unsure
exactly what that entails at the moment. And i truley do believe at this point that both
sides are pushing some individual scriptures past their intent.

I often just have to dive in and let the chips fall where they may sometimes.
If i turn out to be dead wrong in some areas...it wont be the first time. Thats why
i serve up treats and beverages to those im a bother to sad huh? but true!

Sounds like we are pretty much in agreement on the basics of it.

 

[Elin]

Elin, Kath threw a speedball across the plate
giving a Bob Dewaay paper. And by definition im a 5 solas reformed...haha

Really?

but silly me. I didnt know the definitions. And feel a tad foolish calling myself
a theological name when i didnt know what they have previously pumped into it.
Synergy was only a word and a bible one at that. But apparently it now adays
means more. So ill have to change hats. help me pick

I recommend the baseball cap.

 

[zone]

My advice would be to ignore those who consider themselves wise enough to accuse you of not being a child of God(if that is was has happened, I haven't read the posts) because they think they have the head doctrine to do it. The internet is full of such people, they will have to answer one day for setting themselvbes up as Judge, Jury and executioner. In truth they simply show how much real truth and knowledge and undserstanding they lack

Although Arianism carries Arius's name, its doctrines did not entirely originate with him. Lucian of Antioch, Arius's teacher and mentor, was accused by Bishop Alexander of Alexandria of being the source for Arius's heretical teachings—not so much that Lucian had taught Arianism per se, but rather that he held certain heretical tendencies which he passed on to his pupil, Arius.[1] Indeed, the noted Russian historian Alexander Vasiliev refers to Lucian as "the Arius before Arius".[2]

As stated above, Arius denied the full deity of the preexistent Son of God, the Logos who became incarnate as our Lord Jesus Christ ("the Word (Jesus Christ) became flesh" John 1:14 - NKJV). He held that the Son, while divine and like unto God, was created by God as the agent through whom He created the universe; thus that there was a time when the Son "was not".

 

[Elin]

Well as it isn't written in the Gosepl that the convert must sin as he has limited free will to obey/not sin, and as that sure isn't what Paul meant in the verses you quoted from Rom to back up your view. And as when Christ quoted being a slave to sin it wasn't in the same context you meant when you quoted those words of Christ from John, I don't think either Paul or Christ would have had the same view of the Gospel you have mentioned in your 'backdrop' on those subjects

I would have to agree since the gospel was not presented there because it was not their subject matter.

As to whether Christ would have the same view of the Gospel of Grace as me. If you at some point want to move away from the 'backdrop' amnd discuss the Gospel of Grace proper I will respond to what you write and you can make your own mind up as to whether you think my view of the Gosepl is biblical or not

Then perhaps comments such as the following should not be made:

it seems a pretty depressing, weak and empty Gospel

 

[cfultz3]

My advice would be to ignore those who consider themselves wise enough to accuse you of not being a child of God(if that is was has happened, I haven't read the posts) because they think they have the head doctrine to do it. The internet is full of such people, they will have to answer one day for setting themselvbes up as Judge, Jury and executioner. In truth they simply show how much real truth and knowledge and undserstanding they lack

Yeah she will say that I have misunderstood and explain it away. She says a child of God does not think that way, and if I think that way, then I am not a child of God, unregenerated, etc.....
I consider that deflection of drawing attention away in trying to defend that doctrine of limited atonement. But, we are told that we shall know a tree by its fruits.

Thanks for your advice, but I think she does more harm to herself then she realizes.

 

[Abiding]

I think your understanding of Ro 9 is driven by another issue.

It is clearly about the sovereignty of God in salvation, regarding the Jews as well as all men (Ro 9:18, 27, 30-33).


Sounds like we are pretty much in agreement on the basics of it.

Im still trying to look at that. Of coarse He is sovereign, and will do as He pleases. Never been
against that. Neither did it come to my mind ever to fuss on that. But im still hesitant to make
doctrine from part of a explanation of Israels purpose and condition and status. Its just gotta be
suspect to see verses taken out of a context especially when the context is left behind and
seldom understood or taught as a result. In other words the real point is ignored.

Ill admit that it does explain essentials about personal salvation in verses 30-33. But i never saw a problem
with that. Faith/justification is at the center of Romans. Its been the earlier parts i find misused. And the understanding of
hardening and such. And definitions and inferences made from that.

 

[Elin]

If you would, note that I was n3ot quoting but was summarizing the jest of Luke 12:6-7 when I said, "Let us fear God, seeing that
He forgets nothing, but will bring all things to remembrance". That is a major difference.

The major difference is: that is not the gist of Luke.

From Luke 12:1, we see that we are not to become leaven.

No, the leaven was the hypocrisy of the Pharisees.

12:1 is in the context of the fierce opposition of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, who besieged Jesus with questions waiting to catch him in something he might say (Lk 11:53-54).

Jesus tells them they are not to do as the hypocritical Pharisees do, who do not practice what they preach.

Verse 2 tells us quite plainly that God will bring all things to remembrance when it said," For there is nothing covered, that shall not be revealed; neither hid, that shall not be known." Verse 3 continues to tell us that even things spoken in secret will be revealed.

No, it doesn't, you have added that to v.2.

Vv. 2-3 tell them that nothing will be hidden regarding the practice of hypocrisy, by either the Pharisees or themselves.

Then follows the warnings and encouragements regarding persecution (vv. 4-7).

So we are forewarned that we are not to be afraid of those who can only kill the body, but we should fear the One who cannot only kill the body, but has the power to throw one into Hell.

Yes, but that forewarning is in regard to persecution, and has noting to do with the yeast of the Pharisees.

So, what does it mean: Conclusively, we are held accountable to God, and He will lay open all things.

No, it is not about accountability to God.

That is treated elsewhere.

So, keep that in mind.

And another really good thing to keep in mind is his warning against hypocrisy.

I didn't complete my response here, it should also include:

Lk 12:7 - "Don't be afraid, you are worth more than many sparrows."

That is the gist of Lk 12:6-7.

It's not about acccountability to God, it's about God's provision for them in persecution.

As his eye is on even the sparrow to watch over it,

so his eye is upon them, who are worth more than many sparrows, to watch over them in persecution.

​

 

[Meshullam]

John is really badly misinterpreted by almost everyone .. *sigh*

IN the initial starting point (or 'beginning') there was the divine utterances (or 'word' or 'message' (logos)), and the 'divine utterances' were 'in motion with' (en pros) (towards a final point) God, and God was (amongst) the divine utterance (as God is only known to us by his word (at this point)).

This (houtos) (of what we previously speak) was in the beginning with God. All things, through this (autou)('This' being either 'God's word' 'God's thought' or 'God's 'breath' (what comes from his mouth), or, subsequently 'him' (God himself), came into existence (came about, came to happen, or 'came to be born' (egeneto)), and without him/this, not one thing came to be that has come into being.

This talks about God's SPOKEN word.

In it (his word, or alternatively 'in him' (God) was life, and the life was the (source of) light (phos) for men. And in the darkness (or 'obscurity') the light shines. And the darkness did not overcome (or alternatively, did not 'take hold of' or 'comprehend entirely')

A LA GENESIS:

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. [SUP]2 [/SUP]Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.



[SUP]3[/SUP]And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. [SUP]4 [/SUP]God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. [SUP]5 [/SUP]God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.

 

[Elin]

If you don't think man has a fallen nature,

just look at the conclusions his logic leads him to make.

The children of God don't think like that.

If that is the conclusion you come to regarding your faith, then you aren't one of his.

Elin, are you really going to go there. You know that I am not talking about my faith. Anyone who reads that can see that it was a hypothetical position one would face if they were told about limited atonement. It is not my logic at play here, but the conclusion of limited atonement at play. How else can it be concluded!!! Limited atonement would tell someone that Christ did not die for them but for His pre-chosen ones.

I was counting on that, which is why I felt free to say that anyone who thought like that about their faith did not have the changed disposition which all God's children have.

 

[cfultz3]

Are you saying the thinking of your objection is the way you would think regarding your faith, in the light of the Sovereignty of God in salvation?

What I say can only be the end conclusion one is presented when that one is faced with a doctrine which says, "Christ died for me and not you". And if one refutes that with how that sounds, that one is accused of not being regenerated, and if one thinks against that doctrine, then that 'not being regenerated' is expressed out as not being a child of God.

So, your problem is that if one finds fault in your doctrine then apparently that one is against God Himself and must be accursed. My salvation is assured in Christ, so your condemnation means nothing more than the wind blowing. But, I do want you to know that by condemning, you are condemning yourself. With that understanding, believe it or not, my concern is for your soul. So, please stop implying or saying that I am not a child of God or any of its deviations. You do not search the heart, you do not know the intent, you do not set on Jesus' Throne.

You are not taking into account that the gift of faith is not just a change in thinking, but is just as much a dramatic change in disposition.

You are not taking into consideration those who are still yet young in faith. And how that doctrine possibly implants a doubt into their minds.

The disposition of those who have been given faith by God does not dispose them to think that way.

Are you saying those who come into the faith will automatically be disposed to fully walk with God, seeing that the Bible is chalk full of examples of people not fully persuaded at the instant of giving faith?

You are thinking only in terms of fides, you are not thinking in terms of fiduces.

I searched those two words and could not find their meaning, mind defining them.

I'm sorry if you find that offensive, but you are wrong about the kind of thinking regarding one's faith that the sovereignty of God in salvation must lead to.

I have no problem with God's sovereignty in salvation, but I do have a problem with those things I have previously listed throughout this thread.

 

[cfultz3]

I was counting on that, which is why I felt free to say that anyone who thought like that about their faith did not have the changed disposition which all God's children have.

perhaps you should read what you highlighted. You did not say 'anyone' but 'you (me)'. Perhaps, instead of using the universal 'you', if that is what you are doing, you should use the generic 'one/he/person' and then I would not fell you are personally attacking my faith. Just a suggestion.

 

[zone]

What I say can only be the end conclusion one is presented when that one is faced with a doctrine which says, "Christ died for me and not you".

chris, though this is just silly and i've never heard anyone say this to someone else - do we not hear from the arminian-ish camp something similar, i.e.:

Christ died for you, but you're not saved because you're not walking in the Spirit; obeying; living your faith; following His leading like i am?

cuz i see that now and then

 

[Stephen63]

Words used to describe people who are quick to argue

argumentative
adjective
someone who is argumentative often argues or disagrees with people

contrary
adjective
someone who is contrary enjoys disagreeing with people and doing the opposite of what is expected orasked

combative
adjective
ready to fight, argue with, or oppose someone

confrontational
adjective
behaving in a way that shows you want to have an argument or fight with someone

quarrelsome
adjective
tending to argue with people

cantankerous
adjective
always complaining or arguing and easily annoyed

contentious
adjective
enjoying arguing with other people

volatile
adjective
someone who is volatile can quickly become angry or violent

truculent
adjective
easily annoyed and always ready to argue or fight

pugnacious
adjective
quick to argue or fight with people

Any questions?

 

[mark54]

I
Then perhaps comments such as the following should not be made:

On the contrary. A message of:
Man has a limited free will to obey/not to sin, is a pretty depressing Gospel, as I imagine most would agree

 

[SarahM777]

Words used to describe people who are quick to argue

argumentative
adjective
someonewhoisargumentativeoftenarguesordisagreeswithpeople

contrary
adjective
someonewhoiscontraryenjoysdisagreeingwithpeopleanddoingtheoppositeofwhatisexpectedorasked

combative
adjective
readytofight, arguewith, oropposesomeone

confrontational
adjective
behavinginawaythatshowsyouwanttohaveanargumentorfightwithsomeone

quarrelsome
adjective
tendingtoarguewithpeople

cantankerous
adjective
alwayscomplainingorarguingandeasilyannoyed

contentious
adjective
enjoyingarguingwithotherpeople

volatile
adjective
someonewhoisvolatilecanquicklybecomeangryorviolent

truculent
adjective
easilyannoyedandalwaysreadytoargueorfight

pugnacious
adjective
quicktoargueorfightwithpeople

Any questions?

Justoneisitnotpossiblethattheirmaybesomeonewhocannotreadthatverywellastherearenobreaksbetweenthewords?

 

[mark54]

Yeah she will say that I have misunderstood and explain it away. She says a child of God does not think that way, and if I think that way, then I am not a child of God, unregenerated, etc.....
I consider that deflection of drawing attention away in trying to defend that doctrine of limited atonement. But, we are told that we shall know a tree by its fruits.

Thanks for your advice, but I think she does more harm to herself then she realizes.

Anyone who infers, or states another is not saved/not a Christian based on their own particular head doctrine does much harm to themselves. It may well be said to deflect away from what is being discusssed, but often(I am not saying it is in this case) it has much to do with pride, vanity and ego. People come onto websites like these believing they know much 'doctrine' and they are mature/wise enough in the faith to then make the judgements on another that they do. The 'doctrine' required for a person to become a Christian/inherit eternall life is far less than many of the wise and learned proclaim on these websites. And the deciding factor as to whether a person is saved or not is whether the Holy Spirit dwells in them. Not whether you meet the doctrinal standards/requirememnts of someone on the internet who considers themselves mature/wise in the faith, and thus by their judgemental attitude of others shows the opposite to be true.
If your minister does not question your salvation, and he is far better placed than an internet scholar to give you such an opinion, I would ignore what some tell you on here.
As a minister on another website said
Many come onto the internet who think they know

 

[mark54]

Mark,

This is part of the meat. It is part of what people need to hear. It's not the light fluffy stuff,that people so often want to hear but it MUST be there,in order to truly see why we need a savior. Instead of getting on Elin's case about the fact that she has already told you what the purpose of this thread is,instead of wasting all that time and energy complaining about it,why not put that energy into starting a thread that would go in the direction that you would prefer.

Do we need someone on the internet to tell us why we need a Saviour? I am not myself convinced we do, someone else is far better placed to tell us that. But I accept people have different ideas of what 'meat' is.
For myself I don't think of meat as acceptintg predestination
Beimng told we have a basic sin nature(surely most of us know that anyway)
Or that we we have a limited free will to obey/we must inevitably sin
But as I say, I accept people see 'meat' differently

I agree, people don't need to hear light fluffy stuffy

 

[zone]

Do we need someone on the internet to tell us why we need a Saviour? I am not myself convinced we do

*cough*
didn't y'all make a half doz. posts demanding she do so?
and hinting if she didn't she t'weren't saved?
uh ya i think so.

 

[SarahM777]

Do we need someone on the internet to tell us why we need a Saviour?

Maybe Christians don't but unbelievers do. How do you know that this is the only time someone will hear it? Are you that wise that you can say they don't? Can you see all that the Lord will use to draw them to Himself?

 

[cfultz3]

chris, though this is just silly and i've never heard anyone say this to someone else - do we not hear from the arminian-ish camp something similar, i.e.:

Christ died for you, but you're not saved because you're not walking in the Spirit; obeying; living your faith; following His leading like i am?

cuz i see that now and then

Do not know what arminiahish stands for, but I understand from Scripture that Christ died for all and that the Spirit is the sealing of sonhood, that we are commanded to walk in love (thus, living one's faith), and that we are to follow Him in His leading.

To me, elect= whosoever shall believe in the Son. God has chosen those in Christ as His people, they are chosen by Him.

But the way I see limited atonement defined: one has been pre-determined, and everything else I have mentioned.

But, I suppose two wrongs could make a right. If one camp says it and the other camp too, then those who find something in err in the other should be silenced because their 'side' are just as guilty. That is a good way to silence any opposition.

But on the other hand, I guess you are right. It seems I cannot learn from past mistakes: I suppose people will believe what they will.