|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 8/11/2008 12:04:57 PM
|
|
|
FreeGrace
Posts: 10388
Joined: 12/30/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Theophile2
Ultimately, in the matter of choosing one's Christian denomination, we must side with the Reformer's mantra: “preserve unity in essentials, liberty in non-essentials, and charity in both” (- Rupertus Meldenius, circa 1627)
http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/jod/augustine/quote.html
Blessings to all and remember:
“preserve unity in essentials, liberty in non-essentials, and charity in both”
I am in full agreement with this statement, regardless of who originally said it. So, let me ask you, do you think that those for whom Christ died is an "essential", or a "non-essential"? At issue is whether He died for everyone in the human race, or only a select elect. Your thoughts?
Also, do you think that the isse of whether God created mankind with the ability to believe or reject the gospel vs God must regenerate in order for man to believe is an "essential" or a "non-essential"? Thanks.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 8/11/2008 12:11:18 PM
|
|
|
SureHope
Posts: 1689
Joined: 3/11/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: FreeGrace
quote:
ORIGINAL: SureHope
All men have the freedom of choice to choose whatever they want to choose. All of us consider the pros and cons in the choices we make and end choosing that which we desire. My definition does not limit the options, for all options a person is confronted with are available. But one thing is for sure, man only chooses that which he desires.
Cornelius desired to know God. He reverenced Him and prayed continually, and God answered his prayers.
What does that have to do with what I stated? Your assumption of cause is not found in the text.
quote:
quote:
Or to say it in other words, all men choose that which they want to choose. Jonathan Edwards, the great theologian of the 18th Century said it this way,
Why bother quoting a fellow C camper? What's the point? How much credibility would you give any quote I might use from a writer of the free will pov? None.
I have quoted those of the FW persuasion and RT. It matters not what theology a person adheres to, what matters is what I quoted actually makes perfect sense and is very fundamental. It is a shame you have not commented on anything I have stated concerning ‘free will.’
quote:
quote:
All men are free to make whatever choice the want, and each choice is dependent upon the state and disposition of their mind and heart which determines their desires and choices.
Interesting. You seem to be the only reformist here who believes that. My impression from all the posts is that the non-elect were NOT chosen to believe, and thus cannot either understand or believe the gospel. iow, they WILL NOT ever have that choice. otoh, the elect were chosen to believe, and CANNOT reject the gospel. How is that a choice, either? You seem to contradict the bulk of reformed theology.
No, I think most would agree with the statement that every man has free will to believe whatever he wants. I think that the statement that each person's choice is dependent upon the state and disposition of their mind and heart would be agreeable to most that adhere to reformed theology. The question remains, what is the state and disposition of the mind and heart of fallen man and what does he desire and want? A person’s choice becomes limited only by his own preferences and desires.
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
The purpose of Acts 10 is obviously not to show the cause of Cornelius’ actions and the cause of his belief. To use Cornelius to prove cause of belief and it not being found in the text is presumption gone to seed.
While that is not the "purpose", neveretheless, Acts DOES show that Cornelius believed the divine Truth that was being presented to him. Do you deny this?
Acts 10 does not address the cause of Cornelius’ believing.
Does Acts 13:48 address the "cause" of the Gentiles believing? It does say they were "tasso", which has a rather wide usage. But, since God isn't in the text, what support do you have for God being the "cause" in Acts 13:48? Do you see how silly your defense is in Acts 10 about "cause"?
No, I see how silly your presumption that a cause can be presumed, especially in light of many scriptures that go against any presupposition that the cause is found in fallen man himself.
quote:
Since you won't let go of your "cause obsession", there is no further point in discussing it. We're making no headway at all.
The cause is your obsession, not mine. You are the one claiming the cause of Cornelius' believing. I am merely pointing out that there is no warrant from such presupposition found in Acts 10 or Romans 1.
quote:
quote:
quote:
The text is very clear that Cornelius was doing these things. Your defense that the "cause" is not shown is as weak as the reformed pov that Acts 13:48 refers to God doing the "ordaining", when His Name is not even in the text. How come you can "get away" with such a defense, but you deny another pov the "same" argument?
iow, God isn't mentioned in Acts 13:48, yet all reformed understand the "ordaining" coming from God. You have no support for that, yet you grip tenaciously to that understanding even though God isn't mentioned as the "cause" of the ordaining. Y'all just claim it's "obvious" from the text.
Well, I'm claiming the same thing. It's obvious from the text that Cornelius was doing the causing and choosing.
First, I have not made any comments on Acts 13:48.
Second, if you think that God doing the ordaining in Acts 13:48 is a weak argument and you are doing the same in Acts 10 by saying that Cornelius is the cause of his believing, you in fact are saying your argument is weak, and to this assessment I heartily agree.
OK, discussion on Acts 10 and Rom 1 is closed. Please answer my new questions regarding John 8:24 then.
I will answer as I have time.
I have thoroughly enjoyed presenting what Paul wrote in Romans 1; it has given me great personal benefit and appreciation for God’s grace in Christ alone. It has given me a deeper passion for sharing the gospel to a lost and hell deserving world.
I have also appreciated being more acquainted with Cornelius, who was graced by God in such a huge way. Oh, the riches of Christ towards us who have received His mercy and grace.
Blessings
< Message edited by SureHope -- 8/11/2008 1:36:32 PM >
_____________________________
-Fix Your Hope Completely on the Grace to be Brought to You at the Revelation of Jesus Christ (1 Pet 1:13)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 8/11/2008 12:17:18 PM
|
|
|
FreeGrace
Posts: 10388
Joined: 12/30/2005
Status: offline
|
Regarding the text of John 8:24, I think the reformed have created a huge problem in that their theology creates a very legitimate question about WHY Jesus would say what He said to the crowd, all of whom had not believed up to that point. From the reformed perspective, I cannot see any point in His doing so, but the fact remains that He did.
I can easily understand why He said what He said, in the light of free will theology. Everyone faces the real deal of "dying in their sins unlesss they believe in Christ". So, I see Jesus giving them a warning of where they were definitely headed, and He also gave them the solution, so that they could avoid "dying in their sins".
Now, this crowd could be composed entirely of the "non-elect", or "pre-faith elect". Yet, I believe that both were present. Why? The text itself tells us in v.30 and 31 that many believed.
v.30 "As He spoke these things, many came to believe in Him."
v.31 "Jesus therefore was saying to those Jews who HAD believed in Him".
Now, kelman, please pay attention to what John DIDN'T write in v.30. He did NOT write "as He spoke these things, many thought they believed in Him". No. He was very clear: many came to believe in Him.
Also, kelman, please pay attention to what John DIDN'T write in v.31. He did NOT write "Jesus therefore was saying to those Jews who thought they had believed in Him". No. He was very clear; Jesus was speaking to Jews within the larger crowd who had believed in Him.
So, Jesus was addressing both "non-elect" as well as "pre-faith elect" in v.24.
Why can't the reformed explain WHY He said what He said to either group?
Such inability to address this question nor answer it demonstrates the deficiency of the theology.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 8/11/2008 12:27:09 PM
|
|
|
FreeGrace
Posts: 10388
Joined: 12/30/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: SureHope
No, I think most would agree with the statement that every man has free will to believe whatever he wants. I think that the statement that each person's choice is dependent upon the state and disposition of their mind and heart would be agreeable to most that adhere to reformed theology. The question remains, what is the state and disposition of the mind and heart of fallen man and what does he desire and want? A person’s choice becomes limited only by his own preferences and desires.
Your definition of "choice" defies the accepted meaning. If man cannot choose to seek God or to believe, then that "choice" is no real choice at all. You are back at square one, which is: Man doesn't really face a choice when the gospel is presented. That is nonsense. The very reason the gospel is presented is to give men the choice to either believe God or not.
quote:
quote:
OK, discussion on Acts 10 and Rom 1 is closed. Please answer my new questions regarding John 8:24 then.
I will answer as I have time.
I look forward to your response.
quote:
I have thoroughly enjoyed presenting what Paul wrote in Romans 1; it has given me great personal benefit and appreciation for God’s grace in Christ alone.
As it has me as well!
quote:
It has given me a deeper passion for sharing the gospel to a lost a hell deserving world.
What the reformed have not been able to explain is why, since the "elect" were chosen before the foundation of the world (Eph 1:4) and "were prepared beforehand for glory" (Rom 9:23), and the "non-elect were "fitted to destruction" (Rom 9:22) anyway.
quote:
I have also appreciated being more acquainted with Cornelius, who was graced by God in such a huge way. Oh, the riches of Christ towards us who have received His mercy and grace.
I'm glad to have introduced you to him! 
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 8/11/2008 1:09:08 PM
|
|
|
Odeliya
Posts: 3039
Joined: 8/10/2005
Status: offline
|
Hey boys and girls, White Flag!
i am calling for seaze fire for a minute-
Do you see the c/a thread being updated on general Christian Doctrines list or is it stuck on 1311 page? is it cookies on my machine, or could be a bug?
I think you broke the joint with your heavy artillery, rascals! 
K or any other dearest wildcat from C - can you please address Common grace arg. i made here
_____________________________
Don't tell me what to do and I won't tell you were you should go.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 8/11/2008 1:23:55 PM
|
|
|
SureHope
Posts: 1689
Joined: 3/11/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: FreeGrace
quote:
ORIGINAL: SureHope
quote:
ORIGINAL: FreeGrace
quote:
ORIGINAL: SureHope
For when Solomon was old his wives turned away his heart after other gods, and his heart was not wholly true to the LORD his God, as was the heart of David his father. (1Ki 11:4 ESV)
Did David love God with all His heart, mind, soul and strength? Ask Uriah the Hittite.
Why? He's dead. What does "wholly devoted" mean to you? Rather than ask a dead man, I'd rather read what the Bible says about man's ability to be completely devoted to God.
You missed my obvious point. Kind David committed adultery and had a man murdered. This is not the picture of one who loves God with all his heart, mind, soul and strength.
You missed my question. I know what David did. You didn't answer what "wholy devoted" means to you. From 1 Kings 11:4.
That would be an interesting topic, but I am staying focused on and not being sidetracked from the topic of discussion. No man has been man able to do that which God has created him to do and commanded him to do. David is another example of a man who did not fulfill God's purpose and command to love God with all his heart, mind, soul and strength.
quote:
quote:
Every man has the faculties to be willing and unwilling. This is what makes man without excuse. All natural men have been unwilling – all have sinned.
I disagree with you equating sinning with being unwilling.
I already know that.
Being unwilling to honor God is sin. Hopefully you recognize this simple fact.
If man was genuinely willing to honor God and did so, he would be without sin. Man has been unwilling not to sin and thus has dishonored God
quote:
You continue to contradict yourself, yet don't see it. You agree man has FREE CHOICE but out of the other side of your mouth you say their "choice" is based on their preferences. So, that is no choice. You are saying man does only what his preferences dictate. Please explain HOW that is a choice, since you deny that man can choose other than his preferences.
No contradiction FG, I don't think you understand yet. Does anyone choose that which they do not prefer? Of course not. Even when someone does something that is hard or brings discomfort, it is done because of an end that is preferred. Preference has everything to do what is chosen. If, for example, a person hates canned peas and prefers fresh beans, his choice between the two will be made based upon his preferences; all things being equal, he will choose the fresh beans. Although in certain circumstances he may prefer the canned peas because it is easier to store, but he still chooses that which he prefers. This is quite simple and basic. Man's free will is only limited by the disposition of his heart and mind; that which he prefers.
quote:
quote:
quote:
Please explain what "wholy devoted" means to you.
As far as the topic at hand goes, it does not mean loving God with all the heart, mind, soul and strength, for king David showed quite the opposite when he committed adultery and had a man murdered to cover up his sin.
Sin is the opposite of loving God.
So, while David was sinning and being wholly devoted to the Lord, he was not lvoing the Lord. How can one be wholly devoted and not loving?
Again, you have to ask the man he had murdered  .
Are you suggesting that David loved the Lord with every fiber of his being when he was lusting after another man's wife, committed adultery with her and had her husband killed? I hope not. David clearly failed to obey God's command to love him with all of his being.
No man has ever been able to love God with all his heart, mind, soul and strength. God made man to do so, commanded him to do so, and yet, man has refused to do so.
_____________________________
-Fix Your Hope Completely on the Grace to be Brought to You at the Revelation of Jesus Christ (1 Pet 1:13)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 8/11/2008 1:24:16 PM
|
|
|
Odeliya
Posts: 3039
Joined: 8/10/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
Theophile2:
Blessings to all and remember:
“preserve unity in essentials, liberty in non-essentials, and charity in both”
FG:I am in full agreement with this statement, regardless of who originally said it. So, let me ask you, do you think that those for whom Christ died is an "essential", or a "non-essential"? At issue is whether He died for everyone in the human race, or only a select elect. Your thoughts?
Also, do you think that the issue of whether God created mankind with the ability to believe or reject the gospel vs God must regenerate in order for man to believe is an "essential" or a "non-essential"? Thanks.
I always thought that essential in this quote is meant "for salvation",or basic Gospel. In that regard, all who believe in what is needed to be saved is a Christian, for ex. i see Catholics and Prot-s differences as non-essential, and know people from both denoms who are true believers.
However if one believes in works be he cath, prot, arm, calv, etc or such then regardless what his Church labels itself we dont have have essential unity with such person.
_____________________________
Don't tell me what to do and I won't tell you were you should go.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 8/11/2008 1:34:43 PM
|
|
|
SureHope
Posts: 1689
Joined: 3/11/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: FreeGrace
quote:
ORIGINAL: SureHope
No, I think most would agree with the statement that every man has free will to believe whatever he wants. I think that the statement that each person's choice is dependent upon the state and disposition of their mind and heart would be agreeable to most that adhere to reformed theology. The question remains, what is the state and disposition of the mind and heart of fallen man and what does he desire and want? A person’s choice becomes limited only by his own preferences and desires.
Your definition of "choice" defies the accepted meaning. If man cannot choose to seek God or to believe, then that "choice" is no real choice at all. You are back at square one, which is: Man doesn't really face a choice when the gospel is presented. That is nonsense. The very reason the gospel is presented is to give men the choice to either believe God or not.
So, what about, "every man has free will to believe whatever he wants" defies the "accepted meaning" of choice? And who's accepted meaning do you speak of?
Man does have a choice concerning the gospel and chooses according to his preferences; man chooses that which he deems valuable and the best good for his life. This is not nonsense, it is plain fact.
_____________________________
-Fix Your Hope Completely on the Grace to be Brought to You at the Revelation of Jesus Christ (1 Pet 1:13)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 8/11/2008 2:35:03 PM
|
|
|
FreeGrace
Posts: 10388
Joined: 12/30/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Odeliya
Hey boys and girls, White Flag!
i am calling for seaze fire for a minute-
Do you see the c/a thread being updated on general Christian Doctrines list or is it stuck on 1311 page? is it cookies on my machine, or could be a bug?
Sorry to see that you are having some troubles as well. My opening CW page hasn't shown an update since a post of mine 2 days ago! Also, when I hit the OK button, I get a big dialogue box that says "server error in '/' application". I have to X out of that, and hit the refresh button before I can see my own post. But the site no longer takes me to my new post. I have to find it. Bummer.
I addressed this with the webmaster early today, but haven't heard back. I hope they fix it. Quite irritating.
quote:
I think you broke the joint with your heavy artillery, rascals!
Aw, shucks, ma'am, that whar jist targit practice. 
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 8/11/2008 2:49:12 PM
|
|
|
FreeGrace
Posts: 10388
Joined: 12/30/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: SureHope
quote:
ORIGINAL: FreeGrace
quote:
ORIGINAL: SureHope
quote:
ORIGINAL: FreeGrace
quote:
ORIGINAL: SureHope
For when Solomon was old his wives turned away his heart after other gods, and his heart was not wholly true to the LORD his God, as was the heart of David his father. (1Ki 11:4 ESV)
Did David love God with all His heart, mind, soul and strength? Ask Uriah the Hittite.
Why? He's dead. What does "wholly devoted" mean to you? Rather than ask a dead man, I'd rather read what the Bible says about man's ability to be completely devoted to God.
You missed my obvious point. Kind David committed adultery and had a man murdered. This is not the picture of one who loves God with all his heart, mind, soul and strength.
You missed my question. I know what David did. You didn't answer what "wholy devoted" means to you. From 1 Kings 11:4.
That would be an interesting topic, but I am staying focused on and not being sidetracked from the topic of discussion. No man has been man able to do that which God has created him to do and commanded him to do. David is another example of a man who did not fulfill God's purpose and command to love God with all his heart, mind, soul and strength.
OK, end of debate on this topic, then. I see being "wholly devoted" as equivalent to loving God with all our heart, soul, mind, and strength. If you don't want to answer what being "wholly devoted" means to you, OK.
quote:
quote:
quote:
Every man has the faculties to be willing and unwilling. This is what makes man without excuse. All natural men have been unwilling – all have sinned.
I disagree with you equating sinning with being unwilling.
I already know that.
So, again, end of discussion.
quote:
Being unwilling to honor God is sin. Hopefully you recognize this simple fact.
I do recognize that. I also, as you appear not to, that God created mankind to seek Him, which would include being willing to honor Him. If one cannot honor Him, or because of some perceived "preferences" won't, yet God created him to do so, I disagree with your pov, and I am convinced that God created mankind with the ability to do what He created him to do. You disagree, so, end of discussion.
quote:
If man was genuinely willing to honor God and did so, he would be without sin. Man has been unwilling not to sin and thus has dishonored God
I think that is totally bogus. Being willing to honor God has zero to do with being without sin. I am MORE than willing to stop all sin, yet, because of my sin nature (thanks Adam!) I cannot stop sinning. But, I am MORE than willing to stop. So, your point is NOT made.
quote:
Does anyone choose that which they do not prefer? Of course not.
While you will simply disagree, most likely, many people have chosen things they DID NOT WANT to do. Yea, yea, you can argue all about "ulterior motives", etc, but the FACT is that people many times choose things they wouldn't prefer to do. You don't have a point.
quote:
Even when someone does something that is hard or brings discomfort, it is done because of an end that is preferred. Preference has everything to do what is chosen. If, for example, a person hates canned peas and prefers fresh beans, his choice between the two will be made based upon his preferences; all things being equal, he will choose the fresh beans. Although in certain circumstances he may prefer the canned peas because it is easier to store, but he still chooses that which he prefers. This is quite simple and basic. Man's free will is only limited by the disposition of his heart and mind; that which he prefers.
All of this is negated by one simple fact of Scripture. God created mankind to seek Him. Your pov is that man does NOT prefer to do so. Yet you haven't proved it at all.
Actually, your pov is rather silly: God created mankind to seek Him, yet "forgot" or "didn't know how" to create the "preference" needed to seek. The very fact that God created mankind to seek Him should be obvious to anyone with on open mind and desire to seek truth that God would NOT create man without the "necessary preference" to do what He created him to do.
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
Please explain what "wholy devoted" means to you.
As far as the topic at hand goes, it does not mean loving God with all the heart, mind, soul and strength, for king David showed quite the opposite when he committed adultery and had a man murdered to cover up his sin.
Sin is the opposite of loving God.
So, while David was sinning and being wholly devoted to the Lord, he was not lvoing the Lord. How can one be wholly devoted and not loving?
Again, you have to ask the man he had murdered.
Again, he's dead. Dead men don't talk. David was wholly devoted to the Lord. We disagree on what that means, so, end of discussion on that topic.
quote:
Are you suggesting that David loved the Lord with every fiber of his being when he was lusting after another man's wife, committed adultery with her and had her husband killed? I hope not. David clearly failed to obey God's command to love him with all of his being.
Hmm. let's see: "every fiber", "wholly devoted". Hmm. What's the difference? And, please, this isn't about sin. We all sin. Tell men HOW "every fiber" and "wholly devoted" are not the same thing without mentioning sin.
quote:
No man has ever been able to love God with all his heart, mind, soul and strength. God made man to do so, commanded him to do so, and yet, man has refused to do so.
What does Job 1:1 say to you?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 8/11/2008 2:53:36 PM
|
|
|
FreeGrace
Posts: 10388
Joined: 12/30/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: SureHope
quote:
ORIGINAL: FreeGrace
quote:
ORIGINAL: SureHope
No, I think most would agree with the statement that every man has free will to believe whatever he wants. I think that the statement that each person's choice is dependent upon the state and disposition of their mind and heart would be agreeable to most that adhere to reformed theology. The question remains, what is the state and disposition of the mind and heart of fallen man and what does he desire and want? A person’s choice becomes limited only by his own preferences and desires.
Your definition of "choice" defies the accepted meaning. If man cannot choose to seek God or to believe, then that "choice" is no real choice at all. You are back at square one, which is: Man doesn't really face a choice when the gospel is presented. That is nonsense. The very reason the gospel is presented is to give men the choice to either believe God or not.
So, what about, "every man has free will to believe whatever he wants" defies the "accepted meaning" of choice? And who's accepted meaning do you speak of?
What about it? Since you've de-limited "believe whatever he wants" to preferences, and you've denied that man was created witht he preference to seek God, how is your definition even valid?
quote:
Man does have a choice concerning the gospel and chooses according to his preferences; man chooses that which he deems valuable and the best good for his life. This is not nonsense, it is plain fact.
Since millions HAVE believed the gospel, we see that man DOES have the "preference" gene to believe. What you have stated here is true, and I believe it, but unfortunately, I know what you really mean by "preference" and I strongly disagree with your opinion that God would create mankind to seek Him, yet somehow keep such "preference" from him. Your pov just makes no sense, in light of Scripture. You've not shown otherwise.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 8/11/2008 4:27:11 PM
|
|
|
SureHope
Posts: 1689
Joined: 3/11/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: FreeGracequote:
ORIGINAL: SureHope
So, what about, "every man has free will to believe whatever he wants" defies the "accepted meaning" of choice? And who's accepted meaning do you speak of?
What about it? Since you've de-limited "believe whatever he wants" to preferences, and you've denied that man was created witht he preference to seek God, how is your definition even valid?
What on earth do you mean when you say, “you’ve de-limited ‘believe whatever he wants’ to preferences?” Usually one wants that which he prefers or prefers that which he wants. I do not deny that man is created with the faculties to honor God and give thanks, but quite the opposite – all have been given every opportunity to do so, but have chosen not to, and therefore, they are without excuse. There are none that are without excuse for their dishonoring sin before God and all have dishonored God in and by their sin.
quote:
quote:
Man does have a choice concerning the gospel and chooses according to his preferences; man chooses that which he deems valuable and the best good for his life. This is not nonsense, it is plain fact.
Since millions HAVE believed the gospel, we see that man DOES have the "preference" gene to believe.
Your argument is: since millions have believed, therefore we know that man has a “preference gene” to believe. So, your logic is that since millions have believed the gospel, this is proof in and of itself that natural man believes on his own? Not much of an argument FG.
quote:
What you have stated here is true, and I believe it, but unfortunately, I know what you really mean by "preference"
What I mean by preference is just that; what is preferred, desired, wanted, valued.
quote:
and I strongly disagree with your opinion that God would create mankind to seek Him, yet somehow keep such "preference" from him. Your pov just makes no sense, in light of Scripture. You've not shown otherwise.
It makes perfect sense in light of Scripture which I have abundantly shown.
_____________________________
-Fix Your Hope Completely on the Grace to be Brought to You at the Revelation of Jesus Christ (1 Pet 1:13)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 8/11/2008 5:14:59 PM
|
|
|
FreeGrace
Posts: 10388
Joined: 12/30/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: SureHope
quote:
ORIGINAL: FreeGracequote:
ORIGINAL: SureHope
So, what about, "every man has free will to believe whatever he wants" defies the "accepted meaning" of choice? And who's accepted meaning do you speak of?
What about it? Since you've de-limited "believe whatever he wants" to preferences, and you've denied that man was created witht he preference to seek God, how is your definition even valid?
What on earth do you mean when you say, “you’ve de-limited ‘believe whatever he wants’ to preferences?” Usually one wants that which he prefers or prefers that which he wants. I do not deny that man is created with the faculties to honor God and give thanks, but quite the opposite – all have been given every opportunity to do so, but have chosen not to, and therefore, they are without excuse. There are none that are without excuse for their dishonoring sin before God and all have dishonored God in and by their sin.
Since you continue to think that it is "sin" that dishonors God, and that man is able to choose not to sin, but just chooses to sin, and I believe that fallen man is unable to "not sin", further discussion is not warranted. Further, we disagree on the fact that what doesn't honor God is in spite of Himself making Himself evdient to everyone and not everyone seeks Him as a result, and is that which renders man without excuse, further discussion would be of no value. But I do understand your pov.
quote:
quote:
and I strongly disagree with your opinion that God would create mankind to seek Him, yet somehow keep such "preference" from him. Your pov just makes no sense, in light of Scripture. You've not shown otherwise.
It makes perfect sense in light of Scripture which I have abundantly shown.
We just keep on keeping on disagree with each other.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 8/11/2008 8:18:46 PM
|
|
|
KingJamesBond
Posts: 3587
Joined: 12/2/2006
Status: offline
|
FreeGrace,
quote:
No, I am asking you WHY did Jesus even bother to warn them. You haven't answered that yet.
Get real. 
That is not what you are getting at and you know it.
You are trying to prove that people have the ability all on their own to believe the gospel.
You are trying to prove it with text of Jesus telling people plain truth while the same text is void of any truth on the matter of human ability.
You are trying to build a human ability POV system out of text that proves and shows nothing at all of a human ability system.
Instead of giving me a supply of Scripture text that supports the notion that people are able to believe all on their own......you supply text that says nothing about any such ability and try to support the text with your fantasies.
quote:
I AM asking you WHY Jesus bothered warning either the non-elect or the "pre-faith" elect.
Do you suppose Jesus Christ does not know who the elect and non-elect are? Do you suppose that Jesus Christ has never seen all those that would be in hell one day?
Do you suppose that when Jesus Christ looked at Judas that He did not already know all about Judas?
The problem with your little POV is that Jesus told the same truth to everybody. He told the truth to the elect and the damned.
He told the truth to the people that He knew would be going to hell one day........the non-elect. He told the truth to the people He knew would never ever believe in Him.
Why would He tell the truth to those He knows are non-elect and will never believe in Him?
Because He willed to do it and He did it.
That is the answer.
The truth condemns people also.
KJB
_____________________________
Vote out Socialism/Communism and modern day "Robbing Hoods".
Constitutional principles like those found in the Constitution Party will help to build a "Constitutional" Republican Party.
http://www.constitutionparty.com/
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 8/11/2008 8:50:00 PM
|
|
|
KingJamesBond
Posts: 3587
Joined: 12/2/2006
Status: offline
|
SureHope,
I am glad you wanted to stay on track with the topic.
You have given good solid answers TOO many times to list.
The POV FreeGrace tries to give on Romans 3:11......there is no one who understands, no one who seeks God.........is something he always points back to Psalms 14 as he claims it only applies to a specific group called fools as non-fools seek God on their own.
Psalm 14;
1The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.
FreeGrace has a very bad habit of never reading further to find out more.
Psalm 14 continues;
1The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.
2The LORD looked down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there were any that did understand, and seek God.
3They are all gone aside, they are all together become filthy: there is none that doeth good, no, not one.
I guess the text should be clarified?
Maybe one day it will be when some free-will translation team writes the free-will edition of the Bible.
It might be more like;
1Only the fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. The fools are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is no fool that doeth good.
2The LORD looked down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there were any that did understand, and seek God, and He saw Cornelius seeking.
3They are all gone aside except for Cornelius and all the other people that are not fools, they are all together become filthy: there is none that doeth good, no, not one, except for Cornelius and all those with a good natured free-will.
I am not trying to say things out of line here......so is that SORT of how his POV comes across to you?
I am certainly not looking forward to such a translation.
KJB
_____________________________
Vote out Socialism/Communism and modern day "Robbing Hoods".
Constitutional principles like those found in the Constitution Party will help to build a "Constitutional" Republican Party.
http://www.constitutionparty.com/
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 8/11/2008 9:19:47 PM
|
|
|
FreeGrace
Posts: 10388
Joined: 12/30/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: KingJamesBond
FreeGrace,
quote:
No, I am asking you WHY did Jesus even bother to warn them. You haven't answered that yet.
That is not what you are getting at and you know it.
That is exactly what I'm "getting at". I want to know how reformed theology explains why Jesus said what He did. Of course I think it proves that man is surely able to believe, but, so what? Show me, in light of your own theology, WHY Jesus said what He did so I can better understand your theology.
quote:
You are trying to prove that people have the ability all on their own to believe the gospel.
If that's the conclusion that you find from the verse, OK.
quote:
You are trying to prove it with text of Jesus telling people plain truth while the same text is void of any truth on the matter of human ability.
OK, then tell me WHY Jesus said what He did, which proves me wrong. Can you?
quote:
You are trying to build a human ability POV system out of text that proves and shows nothing at all of a human ability system.
If it doesn't, don't you think that reformed theology should have no problem with asnwering my WHY questions? Why can't you answer?
quote:
Instead of giving me a supply of Scripture text that supports the notion that people are able to believe all on their own......you supply text that says nothing about any such ability and try to support the text with your fantasies.
OK, bust my "fantasies" with a good solid reformed answer to the question of WHY did Jesus say what He did, to either the "non-elect' or to the "pre-faith elect". Can you?
quote:
quote:
I AM asking you WHY Jesus bothered warning either the non-elect or the "pre-faith" elect.
Do you suppose Jesus Christ does not know who the elect and non-elect are? Do you suppose that Jesus Christ has never seen all those that would be in hell one day?
I am absolutely certain He knows who each one is. So what? Why do you continue to dodge my question of WHY He said what He said. How come reformed theology appears to have NO answer to my WHY question. What does that say about reformed theology?
quote:
Do you suppose that when Jesus Christ looked at Judas that He did not already know all about Judas?
Excuse me, but I'm not talking about Judas. I asked you a question that you apparently don't want to answer, for you know what the answer is.
quote:
The problem with your little POV is that Jesus told the same truth to everybody. He told the truth to the elect and the damned.
You know what? Of course He did. Now, please explain WHY He would bother, knowing the "non-elect" were "fitted to destruction" and the "elect" were "prepared beforehand for glory". What do you think His point was?
quote:
He told the truth to the people that He knew would be going to hell one day........the non-elect. He told the truth to the people He knew would never ever believe in Him.
Of course He ONLY spoke Truth, because He IS Truth. But, that doesn't answer the WHY question either. Can you?
quote:
Why would He tell the truth to those He knows are non-elect and will never believe in Him? Because He willed to do it and He did it.
Uh, we ALL know what He did, KJB. That is no mystery. But it seems WHY He did is a mystery to you and to reformed theology. Why is that?
quote:
That is the answer.
No, that response fails to answer the WHY question. Why did He do it. We ALL know He did it because He willed to do it. That didn't answer the question.
quote:
The truth condemns people also.
Actually, to be Biblically correct, rejection of Truth condemns people.
Your ongoing failure to answer the WHY question puts your theology into high suspicion. You should have a fairly ready answer, in light of your own theology, as to WHY Jesus said what He did. So far, you haven't done so.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 8/11/2008 9:22:15 PM
|
|
|
FreeGrace
Posts: 10388
Joined: 12/30/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: KingJamesBond
SureHope,
I am glad you wanted to stay on track with the topic.
You have given good solid answers TOO many times to list.
The POV FreeGrace tries to give on Romans 3:11......there is no one who understands, no one who seeks God.........is something he always points back to Psalms 14 as he claims it only applies to a specific group called fools as non-fools seek God on their own.
Psalm 14;
1The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.
FreeGrace has a very bad habit of never reading further to find out more.
Actually, thanks for pointing this out. I have been the one to repeatedly ask the reformists about the next 6 verses that Paul quoted from the OT after v.10-12. Since the reformed pov is that 3:10-12 speaks of no one in the human race seeking God, what do you do with the other 6 quotes from the OT. Do ALL of them also refer to the entire human race?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 8/11/2008 9:30:50 PM
|
|
|
Theophile2
Posts: 28
Joined: 8/7/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: FreeGrace
quote:
ORIGINAL: Theophile2
Ultimately, in the matter of choosing one's Christian denomination, we must side with the Reformer's mantra: “preserve unity in essentials, liberty in non-essentials, and charity in both” (- Rupertus Meldenius, circa 1627)
http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/jod/augustine/quote.html
Blessings to all and remember:
“preserve unity in essentials, liberty in non-essentials, and charity in both”
I am in full agreement with this statement, regardless of who originally said it. So, let me ask you, do you think that those for whom Christ died is an "essential", or a "non-essential"? At issue is whether He died for everyone in the human race, or only a select elect. Your thoughts?
Also, do you think that the isse of whether God created mankind with the ability to believe or reject the gospel vs God must regenerate in order for man to believe is an "essential" or a "non-essential"? Thanks.
FreeGrace -
Do I believe that man's limited attempt to articulate the ways and means of an eternal God in the matters of human choice versus Election by God are essential to salvation - no. I believe that those who believe in either perspective, if they have faith in Christ alone as their savior (with a proper understanding of who He is as savior), will both show up in heaven.
Do I believe that man's limited attempt to articulate the ways and means of an eternal God in the matters of human choice versus Spiritual regeneration are essential to salvation - no. I believe that those who believe in either perspective, if they have faith in Christ alone as their savior (with a proper understanding of who He is as savior), will both show up in heaven.
IMHO, I believe that the Word of God in its entirety, being infallible and inerrant, is essential guidance for the living of our lives and that we should conform our daily decisions to said guidance. Also, IMHO, the studies that I have embarked on have convinced me it is essential for a Biblical theology to remain consistent across all subjects while taking the entire Word of God into account. Where I stand I'm sure is apparent.
Blessings ...
_____________________________
"Unless I am convinced by Scripture and plain reason ... my conscience is captive to the Word of God." - Martin Luther, Diet of Worms, April 2, 1521.
*** Sola Fide, Sola Gratia, Sola Scriptura, Solus Christus, Soli Deo Gloria ***
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 8/11/2008 9:37:06 PM
|
|
|
tdd1975
Posts: 887
Joined: 2/12/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
Actually, thanks for pointing this out. I have been the one to repeatedly ask the reformists about the next 6 verses that Paul quoted from the OT after v.10-12. Since the reformed pov is that 3:10-12 speaks of no one in the human race seeking God, what do you do with the other 6 quotes from the OT. Do ALL of them also refer to the entire human race?
Yes.
(James 2:10) For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.
_____________________________
As long as we are something, God cannot be all.- Andrew Murray
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 8/11/2008 9:57:06 PM
|
|
|
KingJamesBond
Posts: 3587
Joined: 12/2/2006
Status: offline
|
test
_____________________________
Vote out Socialism/Communism and modern day "Robbing Hoods".
Constitutional principles like those found in the Constitution Party will help to build a "Constitutional" Republican Party.
http://www.constitutionparty.com/
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 8/11/2008 10:05:13 PM
|
|
|
Theophile2
Posts: 28
Joined: 8/7/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: FreeGrace
Might I ask you why you "chose" to quote from RC Sproul's book, since he is obviously reformed? iow, how does his opinion help along any of these "merry-go-rounds" that you note?
FreeGrace -
My apologies for misleading you. If I had quoted from RC Sproul's book, I would have provided a proper reference annotation including what page I got the quote from. What I posted was all original.
If you think my abundant references to scripture in association with the theological explanation for them only contribute to the merry-go-round syndrome, that is OK by me.
It seems the gist of your post that I'm referencing here, is why would God tell a human being to do something that he can't do. This is a very common question actually and related to much more than just election.
It is also a very common question asked about whether or not we can live holy lives as we are directed to by God, and to be able to follow all of His commandments and keep all of His laws like He constantly directs us to throughout the entire Bible. The question in general has been soundly answered by Theologians, not just "theophiles" like me. I pointed you to one of them (RC Sproul) and I would urge you not to dismiss him out of hand, but rather be open and willing to hear (read) what he has to say.
I'll tell you what. If you can answer for me why God would tell us not to sin, to perfectly follow all of His commandments and to be as Holy as He is when we all know that we can't, then I will work to find you the same answer as it relates to believing in Christ as our Savior. Deal?
May God bless your studies.
_____________________________
"Unless I am convinced by Scripture and plain reason ... my conscience is captive to the Word of God." - Martin Luther, Diet of Worms, April 2, 1521.
*** Sola Fide, Sola Gratia, Sola Scriptura, Solus Christus, Soli Deo Gloria ***
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 8/11/2008 10:33:55 PM
|
|
|
KingJamesBond
Posts: 3587
Joined: 12/2/2006
Status: offline
|
tdd1975,
quote:
Yes.
(James 2:10) For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.
For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.
I notice that text you posted.
We must now do what FreeGrace does and ask ourselves thousands of times WHY that was written.
(((((((Ponders)))))))..........by jove, I think Ive got it!
It must have been written to show us that we have the ability to keep the whole law. 
It was written to show us that we have the ability to keep the whole law and be guilty of none of it.
It must be....otherwise we are being taunted and taunting is just not fun or nice. 
1The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.
2The LORD looked down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there were any that did understand, and seek God.
3They are all gone aside, they are all together become filthy: there is none that doeth good, no, not one.
Let us again ask ourselves hundreds of times WHY this was written.
It must be a warning telling us that we are able to seek, understand, and clean ourselves of filth.
I am starting to think that "free-will people" are not "children of men" and dont consider themselves as such. Maybe they are some different sort of creature that us "children of men" just cannot understand?
Are we sure Cornelius was a Gentile man?
Oh, now I see.....Cornelius was not a child of a man but a man of a man!
Maybe Psalm 14 in another translation sheds a little more light;
2 The LORD looks down from heaven
on the sons of men
to see if there are any who understand,
any who seek God.
3 All have turned aside,
they have together become corrupt;
there is no one who does good,
not even one.
Cornelius could certainly be considered a son of a man, unless of course he was a different type of creature.
tdd1975,
You know what?
I am just going to have to agree with you because you make way too much sense!
KJB
_____________________________
Vote out Socialism/Communism and modern day "Robbing Hoods".
Constitutional principles like those found in the Constitution Party will help to build a "Constitutional" Republican Party.
http://www.constitutionparty.com/
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 8/12/2008 3:25:48 AM
|
|
|
kelman
Posts: 5258
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Eric B
quote:
ORIGINAL: kelman
God "scripted" the Crucifixion, we see this in both the OT and the NT. Yet, God still says the evildoers are accountable. How do you explain that? We see God “scripted” the exodus from Eygpt. Yet, God still held Pharoah accountable. How do you explain that?
That does not say He "chose" the individual, and shut out ny chance of him being saved, because he happened to be the one God "needed" for that act. With enough wicked in the world, including people being hardened for persistant sin and refusal to repent, God would not have to preordain individuals to engage in the crucifixion or any other prophetic wicked act. And like Pharaoh, their "blinding" that Christ spoke of beforehand was in part to give them the courage to carry it out. You say God "wouldn't have to" but the point is He did. We see the prophesy concerning Judas in the OT(Psalm 41:9). Obviously, none of the other wicked would qualify. If a prophecy is certain to happen then it must be ordained.
quote:
quote:
Do you think God has changed how He deals with man?
I hope so. Wouldn't want to be still under the Law! Cute...but not responsive to what I actually said. Unless, of course you do think that God no longer punishes sin.
quote:
quote:
I’m not sure I understand your answer. Are you saying it wasn’t God’s plan that Adam would sin? Scripture speaks of Christ as the Lamb slain from before the foundation of the world and believers’ names being written in the Lamb’s Book of Life before the foundation of the world. Please explain this if you don’t think it was God’s plan that Adam should sin? And, if all this is true, and it is, then how is God “not” the primary cause of sin? So now, you're saying He is the primary cause of sin? I though most [non-hyper] Calvinists denied that. Then you are mistaken. That God is the primary cause of sin is not disputed by Reformed Theology.
quote:
But then again, accountability for man would have no meaning. Actually, God insists that man is accountable. God determined the crucifixion of Christ, the evildoers chose to sin according to their nature and inclinations and God holds them accountable.
quote:
quote:
Yes, I agree they were representing the nations; but, still as individuals they were chosen. Esau represents the nations which God hates, those who are not elect and Jacob represents the elect that which God loves. They are, as you say, “representative” obviously God saves people in all nations. But, we still can’t get passed the fact that Jacob was individually elected and Esau was not. But you're jumping things from one thing to another. This passage has been used to prove that God hates individuals, and then scripts a sequence of events to justify burning them in Hell. The personal "election" of either Jacob or Esau is nowhere mentioned. Because; it's about the use of the nations springing forth from them to bring forth the Savior; not about personal salvation at that point. That's what that Savior would be for). The fact that the passage says that "before either had done good or evil" is clear indication God is speaking of individuals. No one is "scripting" a sequence of events to justify anything; but, it does appear you are attempting to "script" your way out of what is very clear - the election of individuals.
quote:
quote:
How does unconditional election and limited atonement depend upon God supposedly giving a "false faith"? I don't see the connection.
Because that is to explain people "falling away"; who seemed genuilely saved at one point. Still, I don't think generally God gives "false" faith. Man does a good enough job of that himself. I say generally because we do see God sends a false delusion in 2Thes 2:11.
quote:
quote:
They're probably deciding that because of the explosion of the carnal Christian doctrine. A doctrine gone so far astray of Scripture it teaches that if a man once "believed" it makes no difference if were to walk away from God even so far as to die an atheist - still he is saved.
Yea; but that does not give anyone the license to up the ante and demand a certain amount of works, else, you are not saved. We arn people about faking and examining themselves, and that's it. I agree no one has a right to demand "enough" works; but, tell me, do they have a list or something?
_____________________________
beware lest you lose the substance by grasping at the shadow
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 8/12/2008 3:59:47 AM
|
|
|
kelman
Posts: 5258
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: shemaromans
Thank you for reposting the information and your questions, FreeGrace, and thank you for bringing up this passage. I enjoyed spending time with it this afternoon.
Please, please, please do not chop up my post and write twenty times "WHY haven't you answered the question?" I share my conclusion at the end of the post.
In the meantime, I tried to explain what I think about the scripture since you've said that you appreciate such commentary (hopefully I was successful).
John 8
I Am the Light of the World
12 Again Jesus spoke to them, saying, "I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will not walk in darkness, but will have the light of life." 13So the Pharisees said to him, "You are bearing witness about yourself; your testimony is not true." 14Jesus answered, "Even if I do bear witness about myself, my testimony is true, for I know where I came from and where I am going, but you do not know where I come from or where I am going. 15 You judge according to the flesh; I judge no one. 16Yet even if I do judge, my judgment is true, for it is not I alone who judge, but I and the Father who sent me. 17In your Law it is written that the testimony of two people is true. 18I am the one who bears witness about myself, and the Father who sent me bears witness about me." 19They [the Pharisees] said to him therefore, "Where is your Father?" Jesus answered, "You know neither me nor my Father. If you knew me, you would know my Father also." 20These words he spoke in the treasury, as he taught in the temple; but no one arrested him, because his hour had not yet come.
21So he said to them again [the scribes and the Pharisees], "I am going away, and you will seek me, and you will die in your sin. Where I am going, you cannot come." 22So the Jews said, "Will he kill himself, since he says, 'Where I am going, you cannot come'?" 23He said to them, "You are from below; I am from above. You are of this world; I am not of this world. 24I told you that you would die in your sins, for unless you believe that I am he you will die in your sins." 25So they said to him, "Who are you?" Jesus said to them, "Just what I have been telling you from the beginning. 26I have much to say about you and much to judge, but he who sent me is true, and I declare to the world what I have heard from him." 27They did not understand that he had been speaking to them about the Father. 28So Jesus said to them, "When you have lifted up the Son of Man, then you will know that I am he, and that I do nothing on my own authority, but speak just as the Father taught me. 29And he who sent me is with me. He has not left me alone, for I always do the things that are pleasing to him." 30As he was saying these things, many believed in him.
Jesus is reminding them (“I told you…”) of the times that he did tell them about himself and his purpose on earth. They didn’t believe him or get it.
They immediately respond by asking who he is. They still don’t get it. He responds, “Just what I have been telling you from the beginning.” So we see that he’s already told them in the past who he is and what the consequence will be for not believing in him.
******
Why did Jesus warn this group? I don’t see it as a warning. Instead, what Jesus is doing is reminding them about what he went around telling everyone during his ministry. To have eternal life, they must believe in him.
Let’s look again at the text before and after the verse:
21So he said to them again [the scribes and the Pharisees], "I am going away, and you will seek me, and you will die in your sin. Where I am going, you cannot come." He’s telling them what will happen. 22So the Jews said, "Will he kill himself, since he says, 'Where I am going, you cannot come'?" They don’t understand what he’s saying. 23He said to them, "You are from below; I am from above. You are of this world; I am not of this world. 24I told you that you would die in your sins, for unless you believe that I am he you will die in your sins." He’s reminding them of what he’s already told them--that he’s God. 25So they said to him, "Who are you?" Evidence that they still didn’t understand. Jesus said to them, "Just what I have been telling you from the beginning. This sentence shows that Jesus really had been telling them all along. Another reminder. (I have no idea how he could be that patient!) 26I have much to say about you and much to judge, but he who sent me is true, and I declare to the world what I have heard from him."
Declare to the world.
That last bit shows me that Jesus repeated himself to the scribes, Pharisees, and the Jews in general on multiple occasions so that the external call of salvation—the gospel—would be made known to everyone. The Jews heard it, and the writers of the gospels recorded it for both the Jews and the Gentiles.
I still want to study this more, but for now, I see that Jesus is using the scribes, the Pharisees, and the Jews in general as a means to reveal God’s plan of salvation (unfolding from start to finish just as prophesied), to establish the gospel, and to declare it to the world.
If I've written clearly but you disagree, then I suspect the problem might be in that you consider Jesus' comment to be a warning and I do not.
I'll answer your other questions probably tomorrow of the next day. I'm sleepy!
We see similiar action on the part of Christ in John 6. He is teaching the multitudes and disciples in Capernaum as He explains that He is the "bread from heaven" and that they must believe on Him.
He teaches all these knowing precisely those who will not believe - still He teaches "But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him."
It is exactly as you say "that Jesus is using the scribes, the Pharisees, and the Jews in general as a means to reveal God’s plan of salvation (unfolding from start to finish just as prophesied), to establish the gospel, and to declare it to the world."
Christ teaches and explains the Gospel even to those whose eyes are blind, whose ears are not opened and whose heart is stony.
_____________________________
beware lest you lose the substance by grasping at the shadow
|
|
|
|
 New Messages |
 No New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/ New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/o New Messages |
 Locked w/ New Messages |
 Locked w/o New Messages |
|
 Post New Thread
Reply to Message
Post New Poll
Submit Vote
Delete My Own Post
Delete My Own Thread
Rate Posts |
|
|
Forum Tools
Printable Version
