Lordship salvation vs. "easy believism"

[throughfaith]

Is God dependent on contingencies (future events) to make choice?

We should be dependent on what the scriptures say ,not philosophy.

 

[throughfaith]

I was able to watch your video through the link.

I do not believe that God foreordained every sin, in the sense that He infallibly decreed that it must take place, though He did decree that some evil acts take place, like the crucifixtion. But if I am being tempted to commit a certain sin right now, and I commit it, I did not commit it because God determined that I must. I have the God given power to resist the temptation and not yield to sin.

Nevertheless, things are determined in the sense that God determines to allow certain things to take place and in other places He restrains. In other words, while God does not cause evil actions, at the same time, nothing is outside of His control. He could restrain evil or He may permit it, He never is the direct cause of it. And He does restrains and permits in accordance to the outworkings of the will of Him who works all things according to His own purpose.

Which verses support this position ?

 

[throughfaith]

I was able to watch your video through the link.

I do not believe that God foreordained every sin, in the sense that He infallibly decreed that it must take place, though He did decree that some evil acts take place, like the crucifixtion. But if I am being tempted to commit a certain sin right now, and I commit it, I did not commit it because God determined that I must. I have the God given power to resist the temptation and not yield to sin.

Nevertheless, things are determined in the sense that God infallibly determines to allow certain things to take place and in other places He restrains. In other words, while God does not cause evil actions, at the same time, nothing is outside of His control. He could restrain evil or He may permit it, He never is the direct cause of it. And He does restrains and permits in accordance to the outworkings of the will of Him who works all things according to His own purpose.

I kinda like how A w Tozer put it .

Man’s will is free because God is sovereign. A God less than sovereign could not bestow moral freedom upon His creatures. He would be afraid to do so.​

A.W. Tozer

 

[OIC1965]

I kinda like how A w Tozer put it .

Man’s will is free because God is sovereign. A God less than sovereign could not bestow moral freedom upon His creatures. He would be afraid to do so.​

A.W. Tozer

I agree. Yet God is able to frustrate man’s plans when they run counter to His plans. When our freedom runs up against God’s freedom, God wins.

God does whatever He pleases and man can only do what God permits Him to do.

 

[OIC1965]

I agree. Yet God is able to frustrate man’s plans when they run counter to His plans. When our freedom runs up against God’s freedom, God wins.

God does whatever He pleases and man can only do what God permits Him to do.

Edit. I would also question how free man’s will is in a fallen, unredeemed state, as a slave of sin. He is free to answer God’s call to salvation, but not spiritually free otherwise.

 

[throughfaith]

Edit. I would also question how free man’s will is in a fallen, unredeemed state, as a slave of sin. He is free to answer God’s call to salvation, but not spiritually free otherwise.

If you mean the Gospel Call and the reproving of the Holy Spirit on the world then we kinda agree. But it all gets a little bit slippery when you go to scripture in my opinion.

 

[throughfaith]

I agree. Yet God is able to frustrate man’s plans when they run counter to His plans. When our freedom runs up against God’s freedom, God wins.

God does whatever He pleases and man can only do what God permits Him to do.

Yes God had granted that both Jews and gentiles can come freely and believe through the Gospel . Where you start going off is when your using the same calvinistic interpretations of key passages .

 

[throughfaith]

I agree. Yet God is able to frustrate man’s plans when they run counter to His plans. When our freedom runs up against God’s freedom, God wins.

God does whatever He pleases and man can only do what God permits Him to do.

God has permitted all may come . God is pleased to save all who believe. 1 cor 1.21 ..
God’s sovereignty in salvation means that he executes it in accordance with Scripture .
Free will or lack thereof (or lack of a type of it, such as libertarian) is not a proper interpretive pre-consideration. Scriptural authority is the one and only concern, irrespective of the implications to man’s will. (Pro. 30:5)

Conviction of the Holy Spirit is necessary for salvation, but occurs to sinners alike, regardless of consequent faith or unbelief. It is not irresistible or unconditionally selective. (Jn. 16:7-11)

 

[OIC1965]

If you mean the Gospel Call and the reproving of the Holy Spirit on the world then we kinda agree. But it all gets a little bit slippery when you go to scripture in my opinion.

The Spirit and the Bride say come..let the one who is thirsty come drink of the Water of Life.

 

[OIC1965]

God has permitted all may come . God is pleased to save all who believe. 1 cor 1.21 ..
God’s sovereignty in salvation means that he executes it in accordance with Scripture .
Free will or lack thereof (or lack of a type of it, such as libertarian) is not a proper interpretive pre-consideration. Scriptural authority is the one and only concern, irrespective of the implications to man’s will. (Pro. 30:5)

Conviction of the Holy Spirit is necessary for salvation, but occurs to sinners alike, regardless of consequent faith or unbelief. It is not irresistible or unconditionally selective. (Jn. 16:7-11)

I agree with the second paragraph and most of the first. But none of that has anything to do with the quote you are replying to.

 

[OIC1965]

Yes God had granted that both Jews and gentiles can come freely and believe through the Gospel . Where you start going off is when your using the same calvinistic interpretations of key passages .

You mean things like when Calvinists interpret scriptures as teaching the Deity of Christ and the other things they get right

Maybe I shouldn’t teach the Deity of Christ, the existence of hell, the resurrection, or sanctification because Calvinists teach them, and all things Calvinist are heretical, or so you seem to think.

I do not do Calvinist interpretations. I just accept every word of scripture and don’t care to omit parts, like “ before the foundation of the world” part in Ephesians. Nor do I change “ chose us” to “chose a plan”.

 

[throughfaith]

I agree with the second paragraph and most of the first. But none of that has anything to do with the quote you are replying to.

I'm trying to understand what problem you have with ( And you agreed with the A w Tozer quote ) We believe the Gospel. 1 cor 1.21 1) We are sealed by the Holy spirit Eph 4.30 , Eph 1.12-13 ) Now predestined to the redemption of the body Rom 8.29 , Eph 1.5 .

 

[throughfaith]

You mean things like when Calvinists interpret scriptures as teaching the Deity of Christ and the other things they get right

Maybe I shouldn’t teach the Deity of Christ, the existence of hell, the resurrection, or sanctification because Calvinists teach them, and all things Calvinist are heretical, or so you seem to think.

I do not do Calvinist interpretations. I just accept every word of scripture and don’t care to omit parts, like “ before the foundation of the world” part in Ephesians. Nor do I change “ chose us” to “chose a plan”.

Benny hinn believes in those things too . Deception is not as obvious.

 

[OIC1965]

Yes God had granted that both Jews and gentiles can come freely and believe through the Gospel . Where you start going off is when your using the same calvinistic interpretations of key passages .

Translating the word ´ημας as meaning “us” instead of meaning “ a plan” is not Calvinistic. It’s proper translation.

 

[OIC1965]

I'm trying to understand what problem you have with ( And you agreed with the A w Tozer quote ) We believe the Gospel. 1 cor 1.21 1) We are sealed by the Holy spirit Eph 4.30 , Eph 1.12-13 ) Now predestined to the redemption of the body Rom 8.29 , Eph 1.5 .

The fourth sentence in paragraph one is misleading, because the Bible does teach a degree of human inability. Do a study on the words μη δύναμαι, «is not able”.

 

[OIC1965]

Benny hinn believes in those things too . Deception is not as obvious.

You keep complaining to me about the fact that I agree with Calvinists on some points. Your problem is you fail to attack a persons argument. All you really have is that everything you disagree with “is Calvinist”.

I saw you do that when someone mentioned commentaters. You did not address their argument, you addressed the churches they were a part of

When you fail to rebut a persons argument, you default to “ you’re a Calvinist”. So you show that you are unable to address that persons argument and resort to a type of ad hominem, attacking the person instead of dealing with their argument.

As far as Benny Hinn, when I start promoting his errors, you can use that example. My point was, an interpretation is not wrong simply because Calvinists hold it

How many Calvinists have I cited? None by my count.

 

[OIC1965]

You keep complaining to me about the fact that I agree with Calvinists on some points. Your problem is you fail to attack a persons argument. All you really have is that everything you disagree with “is Calvinist”.

I saw you do that when someone mentioned commentaters. You did not address their argument, you addressed the churches they were a part of

When you fail to rebut a persons argument, you default to “ you’re a Calvinist”. So you show that you are unable to address that persons argument and resort to a type of ad hominem, attacking the person instead of dealing with their argument.

As far as Benny Hinn, when I start promoting his errors, you can use that example. My point was, an interpretation is not wrong simply because Calvinists hold it

How many Calvinists have I cited? None by my count.

Btw, if you knew anything about church history and doctrine you would know that my position on election and predestination are not Calvinistic. So either you don’t know these things or you are merely defaulting to what you do when your arguments fail.

 

[throughfaith]

You keep complaining to me about the fact that I agree with Calvinists on some points. Your problem is you fail to attack a persons argument. All you really have is that everything you disagree with “is Calvinist”.

I saw you do that when someone mentioned commentaters. You did not address their argument, you addressed the churches they were a part of

When you fail to rebut a persons argument, you default to “ you’re a Calvinist”. So you show that you are unable to address that persons argument and resort to a type of ad hominem, attacking the person instead of dealing with their argument.

As far as Benny Hinn, when I start promoting his errors, you can use that example. My point was, an interpretation is not wrong simply because Calvinists hold it

How many Calvinists have I cited? None by my count.

I simply said that benny hinn also believes in the deity of Christ ect . Many denominations agree on the trinity , the virgin birth , the deity of Christ , hell ect but you yourself would find questionable because that's how deception works. They can be right on all those things but still be false. Thats all my point was .

 

[throughfaith]

Btw, if you knew anything about church history and doctrine you would know that my position on election and predestination are not Calvinistic. So either you don’t know these things or you are merely defaulting to what you do when your arguments fail.

Election of Calvinism
God’s unconditional choice of individual sinners for salvation by divine
decree, by which they are drawn irresistibly to faith in Christ.
• Election of Arminianism
God’s choice in individual sinners for salvation, conditional on the
person’s free choice to believe in Christ, as foreknown by God.
• Election of Scripture
God’s choice of the church in Christ, for heavenly blessings.

 

[throughfaith]

Btw, if you knew anything about church history and doctrine you would know that my position on election and predestination are not Calvinistic. So either you don’t know these things or you are merely defaulting to what you do when your arguments fail.

1 Peter 1:1–2 (KJV)
1 PETER, an apostle of Jesus Christ,
to the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia,
Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia,
2 Elect according to the foreknowledge of God
the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit,
unto obedience and sprinkling of the
blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied.
Not “saved according to God knowing in advance that you would believe.” That’s Arminianism reading Calvinistic presuppositions into the word “elect.”
Chosen to serve in a capacity in
accordance with what God foreknew
would be required to be accomplished by you at this time and place.
Sprinkling blood on the people goes back to Exodus 24:7-8. It’s a covenant God makes with his
people after he gives them instruction and they reply with, “All that the LORD hath said, will we
do, and be obedient.”
Exodus 24:7–8 (KJV)
7 And he took the book of the covenant, and read in the audience of the people: and they
said, All that the LORD hath said will we do, and be obedient. 8 And Moses took the blood, and sprinkled it on the people, and said, Behold the blood of the covenant, which the LORD hath made with you concerning all these words.
In other words, “You are now part of a covenant where you are
expected to do something and to be obedient. That is, be a servant.