Prayer of the Arminian, Charles Spurgeon

[TheDivineWatermark]

P.S. again, I am neither Arminianist nor Calvinist [for the readers]

 

[Angela53510]

More arrogance ^^^^

More slander ^^^^

 

[UnitedWithChrist]

Depends on what you mean by "raised up to glory"... do you mean, "to heaven"?

Do you recall my posts about the 1Cor15:23's "EACH [meaning, 'of more than two']"? and "each IN HIS OWN ORDER"? and Rev20:6's "having A PART"? (meaning, there doesn't remain only ONE, as in a "general resurrection" [at a singular point in time only]).

And my posts about how Daniel 12:1-4, Hosea 5:15-6:3, Ezekiel 37:12-14,20-23, Isaiah 26:16-21, Romans 11:15[25], and others, do not speak of a physical/bodily resurrection from the dead (but pertain to Israel's "future")?

And how I do not believe the phrase "AT/IN the last day" ["the last day" in particular] refers to "a singular 24-hr day" but a time period of much duration (and yes, this particular "resurrection" occurs on a singular 24-hr day WITHIN "The Last Day [i.e. 7th Millennium]"), and that I believe viewing the phrase "the last day" as the last 24-hr day causes people to confuse and conflate a number of things, such as to view 1Cor15:24's "THEN the end" as saying something it does not say (it does not convey "THEN [immediately] the end]," but "THEN [sequentially] the end" which is an entirely different meaning [per the Grk word used for "THEN" here])

And I covered some of the thoughts regarding John 6:44, here: Post #99 - https://christianchat.com/threads/is-unconditional-election-biblical.187730/post-4045273

I mean the bodily resurrection of the just, when I speak of glorification, but it really wouldn't matter if one is talking about heaven or the bodily resurrection of the just. The point is that John 6:44 teaches that each one who is drawn receives eternal life.

Additionally, the whole chapter proves that there are individuals who have been given to the Son by the Father, and there are individuals who have not been given to the Son. The ones who have been given to the Son by the Father are drawn to him, and are ultimately saved.

Regarding your previous posts, I think I've told you I am not going to spend an hour following your reasoning on something when you haven't even given me a summary of your claim. I have tried to follow your reasoning on some things and found them incoherent. I don't think you reason very soundly.

For instance, the "each" in 1 Cor 15:23 is talking about PEOPLE.

1 Corinthians 15:23 15:23–28 The events at the end of history argue for a bodily resurrection: Christ was raised from the dead first, and his followers will be raised from the dead when he returns (v. 23); Christ’s return brings the end of the present world as he finally eliminates all powers that oppose God (v. 24); Jesus’ present rule lasts until he has subjected all enemies to God’s rule (v. 25, alluding to Ps 110:1); then death, the believers’ last enemy, will be destroyed (vv. 26–27, which quotes Ps 8:6) and Christ’s victory will result in God’s victory (v. 28). The “kingdom” (v. 24) and Christ’s reign (v. 25) is Christ’s rule over history as mediator and sustainer of creation (Col 1:15–17), over the church as his body (Col 1:18), and over the individual lives of his people. Note that Jesus said the kingdom of God had dawned in and through his ministry (Luke 17:21). Some relate Christ’s reign to the millennium (1,000 years) mentioned in Rev 20:1–6.
(NIV Biblical Theology Study Bible)

My understanding would be no different than this.

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

For instance, the "each" in 1 Cor 15:23 is talking about PEOPLE.

Agreed.

[re: resurrection] "but each IN HIS OWN ORDER"

(the Two Witnesses, for example, are resurrected at the "6th Trumpet/2nd Woe" time slot, which is a distinct point in time from others [that is, other PEOPLE besides them] who are resurrected)

 

[UnitedWithChrist]

Agreed.

"[re: resurrection] but each IN HIS OWN ORDER"

(the Two Witnesses, for example, are resurrected at the "6th Trumpet/2nd Woe" time slot, which is a distinct point in time from others [that is, other PEOPLE ] who are resurrected)

See, my perspective on that is that there is only one resurrection to life, and that is Jesus' resurrection.

Due to union with Christ, the believers experience the same resurrection, even if there is a temporal difference.

Rom 6:1-14 says that the believer was resurrected with Jesus. Some take that strictly to refer to new behavior. I take it in a very literal sense that when I was regenerated, I was risen to new life because my life was joined to Jesus, and my resurrection is his resurrection.

In fact, I think that "second death" is a play on words, and there is only one resurrection to eternal punishment.

So, the two options are:

first resurrection (connected with Jesus' resurrection)
second death

However, I realize Scripture refers to the second death as a resurrection in some passages so my preference isn't observed.

 

[UnitedWithChrist]

Agreed.

[re: resurrection] "but each IN HIS OWN ORDER"

(the Two Witnesses, for example, are resurrected at the "6th Trumpet/2nd Woe" time slot, which is a distinct point in time from others [that is, other PEOPLE besides them] who are resurrected)

By the way, are you going to break this off into a separate dispensation?

By the time some of the more creative dispensationalists get done, we could be parsing the entire Bible off into thousands of dispensations.

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

By the way, are you going to break this off into a separate dispensation?
By the time some of the more creative dispensationalists get done, we could be parsing the entire Bible off into thousands of dispensations.

[plz clarify...??] Are you asking me if I believe the Two Witnesses need to have their own "dispensation" in order to be the only ones "resurrected" at the "6th Trumpet/2nd Woe" time slot??






["11 And after the three and a half days, the spirit of life from God entered into them, and they stood upon their feet; and great fear fell upon those beholding them.
[…] 14 The second woe has passed. [...]" ]

 

[UnitedWithChrist]

[plz clarify...??] Are you asking me if I believe the Two Witnesses need to have their own "dispensation" in order to be the only ones "resurrected" at the "6th Trumpet/2nd Woe" time slot??






["11 And after the three and a half days, the spirit of life from God entered into them, and they stood upon their feet; and great fear fell upon those beholding them.
[…] 14 The second woe has passed. [...]" ]

That was more or less a joke, but I do suspect you're trying to use dispensationalism to explain away election

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

^ In view of that comment [so. many. threads. ], I feel it prudent to post what I'd just put in another of these "like" threads, for the readers (of this one):

[quoting that post]

https://christianchat.com/threads/3...se-against-non-calvinists.187702/post-4048745 - Post #336

...and you may not recall my posts (it's okay) regarding the "G138 - heilato /haireó " of 2 Thessalonians 2:13 (which I tend to agree with the versions which translate it as "chosen you firstfruit" )

[quoting from BibleHub]

" choose.
Probably akin to airo https://biblehub.com/greek/142.htm [G142]; to take for oneself, i.e. To prefer -- choose. Some of the forms are borrowed from a cognate hellomai hel'-lom-ahee; which is otherwise obsolete.
see GREEK airo https://biblehub.com/greek/142.htm"

[end quoting BibleHub]

https://biblehub.com/text/2_thessalonians/2-13.htm

In THIS context, I believe it is speaking "to,for,about" "the Church which is His body" [Eph1:20-23 WHEN ] (all those saved "in this present age [singular]")

[end quoting that post]

 

[Melach]

I didn’t read anything beyond this ^^^^
Your words express your heart quite clearly. It reeks of condescending arrogance towards others who don’t share your views which are elitist in their truest form. If election is correct, which it is not, and you’re one of the elect, your heart should be more humble then apple pie.

hi bro here is something i think about

if tulip is true. why doesnt God just grant everyone perfect repentance? they say its repentance the gift of God, you cant do it. why does God give such a terrible repentance to people then? half-way job. (or half- you know what[donkey] job).
that would proof tulip really well i think to everyone. but every reformed man and woman always say its progressive sanctification we are transformed slowly but why, if God gave us good heart, new creature and God does it all perfectly it should be walking like Jesus. not this half--youknowwhat[donkey] repentance.

mr @Lightskin i remember you said that you were given that nickname because most your friends are black. same for me my future wife is black too. and i just want to know is that your nickname because you are white or because you are lightskinned black. when i first saw that nickname i thought it was like one of those names that native americans have.

 

[fredoheaven]

United in Christ when?

 

[Chester]

Want to know my position? I believe, due to Charles Finney, who wasn't a Christian because he denied original sin, justification by faith alone, imputed righteousness, and substitutionary atonement...most of the evangelical church hates Reformed theology. His "decisional regeneration" view, which was not accepted whatsoever until his time, traveled along with his evangelism. Along with this, so has a strong anti-Reformed sentiment.

What is interesting is that when I carefully read your view of Reformed theology it is essentially and practically almost the same that I believe. Calvinists do not believe in "free will", yet you do believe in a certain amount of free choice for man. Yet your accusations against the "free will/Amininian" position show you do not really understand what we (or at least I ) believe. Your villianization of Charles Finney shows a gross misunderstanding and misrepresentation of his position. To say a person is not a Christian because of doctrinal belief? Really? And that is exactly what you say above: "because he denied original sin, justification by faith alone, imputed righteousness, and substitutionary atonement" - that is all doctrinal positions - Salvation is not because of a correct knowledge or position on doctrine.

 

[ForestGreenCook]

John 6:38? Allow me to first say, that I do not believe John 6:39 and John 6:40 are speaking of identical things (as though the writer is simply repeating a truth twice, here). I believe verse 39 is speaking of something distinct from verse 40 (though not wholly unrelated). Verse 40 is speaking of "persons"... whereas v.39 is speaking of "things" (so to speak) which were given Him (such as "government/governance/rule" etc...)



2 Cor 5 -

14 For the love of Christ compels us, having concluded this, that One has died for all, therefore all have died. 15 And He died for all that those living no longer should live to themselves, but to the One having died for them and having been raised again.

So are you saying that Jesus died for worldly things such as "government" and that is what he is going to raise up at the last day? When scriptures harmonize you have to use a little common sense to have them harmonize. And he died for all that "those living" (born again) no longer should live to themselves (their old fleshly nature), but to the one having died for them (people, not things) and having been raised again.

 

[UnitedWithChrist]

What is interesting is that when I carefully read your view of Reformed theology it is essentially and practically almost the same that I believe. Calvinists do not believe in "free will", yet you do believe in a certain amount of free choice for man. Yet your accusations against the "free will/Amininian" position show you do not really understand what we (or at least I ) believe. Your villianization of Charles Finney shows a gross misunderstanding and misrepresentation of his position. To say a person is not a Christian because of doctrinal belief? Really? And that is exactly what you say above: "because he denied original sin, justification by faith alone, imputed righteousness, and substitutionary atonement" - that is all doctrinal positions - Salvation is not because of a correct knowledge or position on doctrine.

Yes, it is. There are core Christian doctrines in the Church. Saying that man has a different way to salvation other than the righteousness of Christ damns someone, especially when it is knowingly rejected.

And this is what Charles Finney did. He denied that righteousness is gained through receiving Jesus' righteousness imputed to the person. God doesn't even allow that from his nation of Israel (Rom 10:1-4).

And, the Galatians were in danger of being accursed due to rejection of justification by faith alone in Jesus Christ alone (Gal 1:6-7).

Finney also denied that Jesus died as his substitute.

Yet, he is a hero in some circles. Billy Graham and Chuck Smith declared that he was a great man of God. I don't think either of them knew his theology, though, and were just commenting on his alleged evangelism.

 

[UnitedWithChrist]

United in Christ when?

United in Christ in time, when they are regenerated. One can't receive any eternal life until they are joined with Christ, because he is the source of their eternal life.

They were already elected, or marked out for salvation, from the foundation of the world by the Father. Jesus died for them, specifically. And the Holy Spirit regenerates them, joining them to Christ and applying all the benefits of salvation.

Salvation is a work of the Triune God.

I'm not sure where this came from, though.

 

[Chester]

Yes, it is. There are core Christian doctrines in the Church. Saying that man has a different way to salvation other than the righteousness of Christ damns someone, especially when it is knowingly rejected.

And this is what Charles Finney did. He denied that righteousness is gained through receiving Jesus' righteousness imputed to the person. God doesn't even allow that from his nation of Israel (Rom 10:1-4).

And, the Galatians were in danger of being accursed due to rejection of justification by faith alone in Jesus Christ alone (Gal 1:6-7).

Finney also denied that Jesus died as his substitute.

Yet, he is a hero in some circles. Billy Graham and Chuck Smith declared that he was a great man of God. I don't think either of them knew his theology, though, and were just commenting on his alleged evangelism.

So am I getting this right - you believe that salvation is based on doctrinal positions? And you are saying Charles Finney was damned because of his doctrinal positions?

 

[ForestGreenCook]

See, my perspective on that is that there is only one resurrection to life, and that is Jesus' resurrection.

Due to union with Christ, the believers experience the same resurrection, even if there is a temporal difference.

Rom 6:1-14 says that the believer was resurrected with Jesus. Some take that strictly to refer to new behavior. I take it in a very literal sense that when I was regenerated, I was risen to new life because my life was joined to Jesus, and my resurrection is his resurrection.

In fact, I think that "second death" is a play on words, and there is only one resurrection to eternal punishment.

So, the two options are:

first resurrection (connected with Jesus' resurrection)
second death

However, I realize Scripture refers to the second death as a resurrection in some passages so my preference isn't observed.

At the last day the elect do not take part in the second death, only the non-elect.

 

[ForestGreenCook]

Yes, it is. There are core Christian doctrines in the Church. Saying that man has a different way to salvation other than the righteousness of Christ damns someone, especially when it is knowingly rejected.

And this is what Charles Finney did. He denied that righteousness is gained through receiving Jesus' righteousness imputed to the person. God doesn't even allow that from his nation of Israel (Rom 10:1-4).

And, the Galatians were in danger of being accursed due to rejection of justification by faith alone in Jesus Christ alone (Gal 1:6-7).

Finney also denied that Jesus died as his substitute.

Yet, he is a hero in some circles. Billy Graham and Chuck Smith declared that he was a great man of God. I don't think either of them knew his theology, though, and were just commenting on his alleged evangelism.

This topic is why I think that I have a broader view of who the elect are than you do. I believe the scriptures to teach that if a person truly believes that there is a spiritual God and worships him, ( contrary to the natural man described in 1 Cor 2:14 ) that he is an elect child of God. You have not convinced me otherwise as of yet.

 

[cv5]

Just thinking outloud...

I understand your frustrations with not wanting to be attacked, calling your faith demonic or your mind idiotic.

Also...

sure there are established relationships here. Obviously preference among men. But you will notice, those who agree with you, like you. It is the nature of the human beast. Those who do not, not so much. Humans are fickle, selective, selfish, prideful, and stubborn, that is why we ALL need a Savior.

I encourage you to truly forgive the ones who attacked your character or faith, be like stephen or our Christ, accept they know not what they do, and hold firm to the refuge that is Him.

With all that said, I still think the Gospel of Christ is what we should be focusing on, not the elect.

I spent a great deal of time recently, trying to understand the differences between Armenianism, Calvinism and Molism, for example.

I wanted to make sure I am at the right church, not to be sure I am saved for I believe and trust my Lord.

I now understand how folks can look at the same passages and come up with such different conclusions.

Let me just say, I think it best to be going to Him, leaning on Him is best, not weighing ourselves down with making sure we prove our position on election and predestination.

How does the serve the cause of Christ?

If folks feel they chose to believe, and you feel like He made us believe, does it matter? We believe. Praise His Holy Name...We Believe!!!! He is our King, all Praise and Glory to Him. He will present us blameless. He died for us all, His mercy supreme.

In Him, and in Him alone, we are elect, so lets just focus on Him.
He created us for good works, to be Holy and blameless, but only possible in Him.

If we love Him, seek Him, making Him the desire of our hearts, that is where we need to start and end, let Him work out the rest. Ours is merely to trust Him enough to keep on loving and forgiving, all with Him in mind.

I suppose, though, if we did that, so many threads would cease to be active or even cease to be.

"With all that said, I still think the Gospel of Christ is what we should be focusing on, not the elect."

Yes sounds good to me.

 

[cv5]

This topic is why I think that I have a broader view of who the elect are than you do. I believe the scriptures to teach that if a person truly believes that there is a spiritual God and worships him, ( contrary to the natural man described in 1 Cor 2:14 ) that he is an elect child of God. You have not convinced me otherwise as of yet.

The requirement is more specific than that. You must put your faith in the Son of God whom God raised from the dead.