* * *
Ok, you really have to hear the background of this next post. The other day I was tweeting with a guy whose Twitter handle is @fivesolasguy, (Brian Thornton.) He responded to a couple of tweets of mine and I have to be honest with you, his words felt very familiar to me. The following is a good sampling of our conversation.
* * *
* * *
Eventually, I got tired of the same runaround and so I said “gotta run” or something similar a couple of times. I continued to get more tweets after saying I had to go (notifications come to my smart phone) and I didn’t want to have to keep picking up my phone for the same guy tweeting the same ol’ stuff and so I blocked him. I think I have only one other person blocked in my 1+ yrs of tweeting.
Well, yesterday, I noticed Mr. Thornton came here to the blog and posted a couple of comments. He questioned why I blocked him on Twitter. So, I went back to Twitter to see what was going on. Apparently, he had tweeted and tagged me quite a bit. I found the evidence on Aug. 9 in which he spouted off publicly about me for blocking him. JA did something she doesn’t allow her kids to do – she rolled her eyes.
* * *
* * *
Wow – those are 6 tweets in a row. There were more, too. I couldn’t tell if the tweeting occurred all at once or throughout the day. I realized that this guy was obviously trying to get some message across to me and not satisfied with my earlier responses and so I gave him an offer to say whatever he’s trying to say in a paragraph or two and I’d post it here on the blog. (You might consider clicking on that link. The exchange is pretty funny – – one of our regular readers, Eric Fry, saw what was going on and put his TX cowboy boots on. Yea, he cut to the chase.) I figured why not – we could try to discuss it here with complete sentences and paragraphs without the Twitter character limitations and just be done with it already.
Hey, what do you know, he took me up on it. You can tell from the tweets above that we both were getting frustrated. Twitter can be very effective or it can be very ineffective. Our conversation was not getting anywhere.
But check out what he wrote. I can’t believe it’s the same guy. It definitely gives more insight into his tweets. The only edit I made was to break up a long paragraph, otherwise, this is exactly Mr. Thornton’s content. I’m looking forward to the discussion.
* * * * * *
A Call for Reasoned Discernment Before Judgment Is Made Upon Others
My wife and I have experienced what is known as spiritual abuse at the hands of a pastor who went to great lengths to “lord it over” his flock. He would arrive at your doorstep unannounced to rebuke you for not attending a service, have others call you out and rebuke you for some comments you made at a small group gathering, and would even verbally chastise you and threaten to remove you from membership if you did not repent of a particular sin he was convinced you had.
When I finally concluded that this guy was beyond the possibility of being reasoned with, I removed my wife and family from his spiritually oppressive influence. This guy was off the chain, so to speak, and I would not allow him to exert his unbiblical and sinful attempts to control us any longer.
My experience had made me a prime candidate to resist any future submission to a pastor/elder/shepherd (it did, in fact, result in me being hyper-critical for several years following that experience). But, in spite of what we went through, I remain convinced of the Bible’s teaching concerning the submission of Christians to their church leaders. Sadly, though, I fear that there are many who experience similar things that we did who become overly cynical, distrusting, and critical of anyone who teaches the biblical truth concerning the authority of church leaders over their congregations. Simply put, bad experiences do not negate the truth of God’s Word. And they don’t give us unfettered license to rail against anyone we believe is abusing their authority.
One of the main mistakes we can make (especially those of us who have experienced abusive practices firsthand from church leaders) is that, going forward, we fail to give others the benefit of the doubt. Paul said that love “bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things”, and I believe part of what Paul is saying there is that our love for one another inside the church will include an attitude and heart of trust, rather than distrust. Our love for one another, rooted in the common bond we have IN Christ, will (should) translate into carefully researched conclusions and comments regarding another’s supposed position on church authority, for example. That love will result in, not publicly expressed suspicion the moment we see a red flag or questionable information, but will instead lead us to make sure that we are counting others as more important than ourselves, which will hopefully result in us reserving judgment until we are sure of the truth. I have been guilty of this more times than I can count.
Another common mistake we tend to make is that we will attack and judge and critique something based upon what someone has written rather than how what has been written actually gets fleshed out in real life. For example, someone reads on a web site article about someone’s position on the church’s authority over a Christian, and they draw all sorts of conclusions and preconceived opinions, not based upon what actually occurs in real life, but rather based upon what was written. I have been guilty of this quite recently. I strongly disagreed with a particular “method” for doing something as it was written and explained on paper, and I began to passionately attack that method with much vigor and emotion. However, when I took a step back and decided to see how that method was actually being fleshed out in real life, my conclusions were completely opposite from my initial judgments. We can erect all manor [sic] of straw men that we can easily knock down (or burn in effigy), when the truth is all we’ve done is malign another member of the body of Christ for no good reason. Make no mistake, there are those who take advantage of others and abuse their authority in the church. And they must be exposed and stopped. But, every red flag is not a cause for misinformed declarations against others who profess Christ. When we do that, we very well may be bringing down someone who is truly on our side. And for what reason? Because we didn’t give the benefit of the doubt, or we didn’t do our homework, or we attacked some words in an article rather than examined real life actions. When that happens, we have acted no differently and no better than those we are accusing of wrong-doing.
I pray we would all grow in the grace of our Lord and Savior as we bear, believe, hope, and endure all things for the well-being of our brothers and sisters in Christ. May we seek to be well-informed, truly discerning members of the church.
Brian Thornton
Spiritual Sounding Board 
A Mom,
Follow the Yellow Brick Road!!
LikeLike
Exactly, Ed. Thee are so many to choose from here’s one:
LikeLike
Ed said,
“Let’s get much much deeper into that context, because you have a PREREQUISITE for the people that believe, in that ONLY GOD WILL CHOOSE WHO WILL BELIEVE, by giving them “saving faith”, for until God gives them “saving faith”, they are incapable of believing.
That is truly your context.”
Very true, very true. Both faith and repentance are gifts from God.
LikeLike
Brian said:
“Very true, very true. Both faith and repentance are gifts from God.”
That is NOT TRUE. Click on my name and it will bring you to my blog. I have it all laid out.
Faith is NOT A GIFT, neither is repentance.
Ed
LikeLike
Ed,
I know where you are coming from but Luther was such a mass of contradictions where do we start? We can start at the very beginning. he wanted to “REFORM” the Catholic church. His Theses were all about indulgences.
His “grace alone” while correct for Justification was still a bait and switch because he has no real belief in sanctification. That is why “sin boldy” resonated with so many people. Your sinning boldy is covered by grace EVEN after you are “chosen” for salvation.
The man was a drunken thug. Ever read his writings on the Jews–we should burn down their homes? Women? (Women were either good for having babies or being prostitutes). Oh my favorite is “Reason is a whore”. And I don’t buy the “man of his time” arguments at all. Luther was more POLITICAL than spiritual. I long for people to see this. The Reformation was POLITICAL using religion as the catalyst.
Why should good Germans buy indulgences to build vast buildings in Rome? A lot of money was leaving their economy when Tetzel had his was selling get out of purgatory cards like hotcakes.. How was Luther really that different when he agreed to a NEW state church which was mandatory. Where tithing was mandatory? Where state church membership got you into the kingdom? It is not as obvious, I grant you but really, how is it different in principle?
LikeLike
“Both faith and repentance are gifts from God.” As are arms and legs. Whether we crawl out of bed and actually use them on a given day is a choice we make.
LikeLike
Faith is a gift:
“By grace you have been saved, through faith, and this is not of yourselves; it is the gift of God.”
“loooking to Jesus, the author and perfector/finisher of faith”
Repentance is a gift:
“The Lord’s bond-servant must not be quarrelsome, but be kind to all, able to teach, patient when wronged, with gentleness correcting those who are in opposition, if perhaps God may grant them repentance leading to the knowledge of the truth, and they may come to their senses and escape from the snare of the devil, having been held captive by him to do his will. “
LikeLike
“That is NOT TRUE. Click on my name and it will bring you to my blog. I have it all laid out.
Faith is NOT A GIFT, neither is repentance.”
The teaching that “faith” is a gift that must be bestowed upon you because YOU cannot have faith is the teaching that is turning many young neo Cals (who are not into ministry) into atheists. They have been waiting around for God to give them the faith they need and agonizingly navel gazing the Gospel, their sin, etc for this until they are worn out and turn against this cruel God for not “giving it to them” because they keep being told “they” cannot have faith but it is only a gift from God to “chosen” people. So they agonize, pray, cry, go nuts begging God to give them “faith”. (Because doubt is considered sin. Wrestling with God is considered sin)
It is insidious and a horrible interpretation. It takes man totally out of the picture until you are a marionette doll with strings being pulled by an arbitrary capricious god. It sounds more like Allah than the One True God of Abraham and His HESED.
LikeLike
Ed,
Is it possible we just managed to make the same point by disagreeing with one another? I love paradox.
LikeLike
Brian,
It is grace that is the gift, not faith.
Our faith God’s grace.
We give God faith, God gives us grace. It is thru OUR OWN faith that God gives us HIS Grace.
Faith originates in us, not the other way around.
Ed
LikeLike
Gary W,
I am not following what you just said. Can you elaborate?
Ed
LikeLike
Brian,
Our faith is based on believing something.
Our faith is increased based on learning more.
That is what it is meant by Jesus being the author and finisher of our faith.
He teaches, we listen, we believe.
Ed
LikeLike
Those who are not saved are in the flesh. It is impossible for those who are in the flesh to please God. Those who are in the flesh are at emnity with God. Those who are in the flesh are spiritual dead. In that natural dead state, a person cannot, of their own accord, cause themselves to become born again. Being born again literally means to be born from above. This is the work of the Holy Spirit. Just as a person cannot and does not cause themself to born physically, a person also cannot and does not cause themself to be born spiritually. They have to be born from above before they can repent and believe.
LikeLike
Brian,
You had said:
“loooking to Jesus, the author and perfector/finisher of faith”
I noticed one word missing:
Hebrews 12:2
Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith
The word “OUR” is missing.
We own it. It is ours. It wasn’t given to us, it originates in us BASED ON teaching (author), and what we trust altogether (Finisher) of OUR (WE OWN IT) faith.
Ed
LikeLike
This concept was the first one that I learned that was attributed to Calvinism. I.had.no.clue. before this.
LikeLike
“By grace you have been saved, through faith, and this is not of yourselves; it is the gift of God.”
I have seen people go around all day on the grammar on this one. the “Grace” is the gift. We must practice faith. Or else, we are not really needed in the salvic equation at all. We would be automons.
LikeLike
Brian,
Oh, how I love when you twist scripture with that in your 10:01 post.
Paul was talking to the Corinthians.
Paul could only feed them MILK because they were not MATURE enough for the meat.
THEY were the ones living in the flesh, and not the spirit.
They were still Christians, none the less.
But, as Paul said of even himself, he dies daily, meaning that even he, himself lives in the flesh from time to time, but that he must kill the flesh in order to live in the spirit.
The “C’s” make that out to be that of what you espouse, that all men are totally depraved.
NOT TRUE.
Ed
LikeLike
Jesus’ first teaching was “Repent and believe”. Why on earth would He tell masses of people to do something THEY cannot do or He knew would never be “chosen” to do? Seems cruel and a bit of a bait and switch.
LikeLike
The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned.
(1 Corinthians 2:14 ESV)
For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God’s law; indeed, it cannot. Those who are in the flesh cannot please God.
(Romans 8:7; Romans 8:8 ESV)
LikeLike
Brian,
Based on your 10:10 a.m. post, I refer you again to my 10:07 a.m. post.
Ed
LikeLike
Lord, command whatever you will, and grant whatever you command.
God commanding something we cannot do is not cruel or a bait and switch.
Man-made laws command us to drive on a particular side of the road and to keep our car betwen certain lines. One who is drunk, however, is not able to do this, but he is still held responsible for doing it.
LikeLike
Ed,
Based upon your 10:07am post, I refer you to my 10:10am post.
Brian
LikeLike
Brian the verses you are quoting do not prove determinism required for the C paradigm. Are you sure you understand “flesh”? From your comments it is obvious you are interjecting the philosophy of dualism into these verses. Perhaps unknowingly?
LikeLike
“God commanding something we cannot do is not cruel or a bait and switch.
Man-made laws command us to drive on a particular side of the road and to keep our car betwen certain lines. One who is drunk, however, is not able to do this, but he is still held responsible for doing it.
”
For your metaphor to work we all have to be equally blinding drunk from birth onward. But we aren’t.
Commanding us to do something we cannot do is very cruel.
Try it on your own children.
LikeLike
I point out to my children often how they are not able to do everything I tell them to do (and how mom and dad also can’t do what God requires of us), and that that is why we all need Christ. He did for us what we could never do for ourselves.
LikeLike
Brian,
I stand by what I said. You examples of your 10:23 comment is not related to the topic at hand.
What is living in the flesh? vs. living in the spirit?
We have a body, we have a spirit.
Flesh=Body
IN THE BODY IS A SINFUL NATURE. When we die, we are without a body…we are just spirit after that. Spirit is not subjected to law, the flesh is.
I die daily.
You gotta go MUCH MUCH deeper spiritually to discern these things, than what you are doing.
In the very real “essence”, you are living in the flesh, not discerning spiritual matters.
Ed
LikeLike
No Brian, You are to “command” them to do things YOU KNOW they cannot do. You are already watering down what you claimed earlier.
Not only that but you are preparing them to believe God’s commands (and yours) are capricious and meaningless.
LikeLike
Brian, You are also preparing them to be antinomians.
3 We know that we have come to know him if we keep his commands. 4 Whoever says, “I know him,” but does not do what he commands is a liar, and the truth is not in that person. 5 But if anyone obeys his word, love for God is truly made complete in them. This is how we know we are in him: 6 Whoever claims to live in him must live as Jesus did. 1 John 2
LikeLike
Ed
You write…
“My bottom line,
I don’t find it wrong for the use of the word pastor as a title.”
Here is where I’m at these days – I do reserve the right to be wrong… 😉
In the Bible, Did any of His Disciples, “use of the word pastor as a title.”?
And, Jesus, taught His Disciples to teach what He commanded them – Yes?
Mat 19-20 KJV
Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them…
Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you…
And, I can NOT find Jesus commanding His Disciples to call themselves…
Or, to take the “Title” shepherd, or pastor. Or call anyone pastor.
Seems, Jesus taught His Disciples there is “ONE” Shepherd – Jesus…
And – “ONE” Teacher – And “ONE” Leader… Jesus… Mat 23:8-10 NASB
Why isn’t what Jesus said important? 😉
Isn’t that what “WE” His Disciples are to teach others?
There is “ONE” Shepherd – “ONE” Teacher – “One” Leader – Jesus???
Even the scriptures, God, have some tough things to say
about human pastor/shepherds that you’ll never hear from the pulpit. 😉
Jer 2:8 …*the pastors* also transgressed against me…
Jer 10:21 For *the pastors* are become brutish…( beastly, carnal )
…they shall not prosper, and all their flocks shall be scattered.
(Sounds like what is going on today – yes?)
Jer 12:10 *Many pastors* have destroyed my vineyard…
Jer 22:22 The **wind shall eat up all thy pastors… (**Wind = rauch – Spirit)
Jer 23:1 Woe be unto *the pastors* that destroy and scatter the sheep…
Jere 23:2 …thus saith the LORD God of Israel against *the pastors*
that feed my people; Ye have scattered my flock, and driven them away,
and have not visited them: behold, I will visit upon you
the evil of your doings, saith the LORD.
Jer 50:6
“My people” hath been “lost sheep:”
**their shepherds** have caused them to *go astray,*
1 Pet 2:25
For ye were as *sheep going astray;*
BUT are now returned to the Shepherd and Bishop of your souls.
I’m Blest… I’ve returned to the Shepherd and Bishop of my soul…
{{{{{{ Jesus }}}}}}
LikeLike
Ed
I tried them human – pastor/leader/teachers – and found them wanting. 🙂
Seems to me, Jesus wants to be our Shepherd/Leader/Teacher. 🙂
John 10:27
My sheep hear MY voice, and I know them, and -They Follow Me:
As one of His sheep – Do I want to follow Jesus?
Or follow a “Mere Fallible Human?” Who calls themself pastor/shepherd?
John 6:45
It is written in the prophets, And they shall be ALL taught of God.
Jesus, “The Word of God,” taught “His Disciples”
1 – NOT to be called teacher for you have “ONE” teacher, Christ. Mt 23:8
2 – NOT to be called leader for you have “ONE” leader, Christ, Mt 23:10
3 – ALL shall be taught of God. Jn 6:45
4 – ALL things, shall be taught you by the Holy Spirit, God. Jn 14:26
5 – ALL truth, will come as the Spirit of truth guides and leads. Jn 16:13
6 – Jesus, as man, does nothing of himself, and is taught of God. Jn 8:28
7 – Peter, knowing Jesus was the Christ, the Son of the living God,
received *the revelation* from Father *God,* and NOT from man. Mt 16:17
NOT from Jesus as man. Jesus gave “All” the glory, all the credit to God.
Jesus taught *The ”ONE” Teacher* is – Christ – Holy Spirit – Father – God.
It does take a step of faith to believe and trust only Jesus…
And that Jesus “can speak to you” and **teach you** “ALL” truth.
And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold:
them also I must bring, and they shall “hear My voice; “
and there shall be “ONE” fold, and “ONE” shepherd.
John 10:16
One Voice – One Fold – One Shepherd – One Leader
{{{{{{ Jesus }}}}}}
LikeLike
Brian,
You say “I point out to my children often how they are not able to do everything I tell them to do.” Is that really true? To my mind, if you knowingly tell your children to do something they cannot do, it is child abuse. I do not believe you are a child abuser. Neither do I believe God abuses his creatures, including ANY human.
LikeLike
A Amos Love,
You said:
“In the Bible, Did any of His Disciples, “use of the word pastor as a title.”?”
I don’t really think it matters. The fact still remains that the apostles are called teachers, etc.
And, I defer that we all call Paul, “Apostle Paul”. It’s not a big deal to me if we say, “Pastor Julie Anne Smith”, or we can say, Julie Anne Smith, a pastor.
You can call me Ray, or you can call me Jay, or you can call me Johnson, or you can call me Jr., butcha doesn’t have to call me Raymond J. Johnson Jr.
Remember that one?
Where in the Bible do we find anyone with a first name, a middle name and a last name or a Jr.?
I don’t really think it matters to God in this regard about titles. Otherwise, we all have some repenting to do in regards to Apostle Paul.
Ed
LikeLike
A Amos Love,
For some, I suppose, Christ is the last name for Jesus…lol.
Ed
LikeLike
A Amos Love,
One last thing before I gotta go for a few hours.
We Christians have the Holy Spirit in us.
We as an individual Christian, when we teach another, we are trusting that it isn’t us teaching them, but that it is God teaching them. Therefore, it is God doing the teaching, and not us.
That goes with those with the title of Pastor, as well. It is there job to feed us, and we are trusting that it is not the pastor himself, but God that dwells in him, and that the pastor is only a mouthpiece.
But that is where it gets tricky. How do we discern the difference between God and man in this case?
We check up on them by being a Berean.
Ed
LikeLike
Ed
What if “Todays” – pastor/leader/reverends…
Are taking God’s Name in Vain? – Shouldn’t we warn them?
Ex 20:7
Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain;
for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.
I used to think – “Taking His Name in Vain” – meant saying – “G… D…. it,” or some such thing. Using God’s Name as a curse word. But – Today – I think it has to do with someone “Wanting to be like God.” Or, at least God Like. And taking for themselves – the names and “Titles” of God — In Vain.
One day, I do a little word study for – Name – and – Vain. 😉
I check out Strongs Concordance and the Dictionary.
Name – In Strongs – #8034 = shem –
1 – a definite and *conspicuous position… – (standing out, clearly visible)
2 – an *appellation… (a name or “Title”)
3 – by implication honor, authority, character.
Vain – In Strongs = #7723 = shav’ –
1 – in the sense of *desolating; – (desolate = bleak and dismal emptiness)
2 – evil (as *destructive), – (*causing great and irreparable harm)
3 – figuratively *idolatry – ( *worship, admiration, reverence for something)
4 – idolatry (as deceptive,)
5 – *vain – ( *having an excessively high opinion of one’s, abilities, or worth)
6 – *vanity – (*pride in or admiration of one’s own achievements)
Ex 20:7
Thou shalt not take the *name ( *position, title, honor, authority.)
of the LORD thy God in *vain; (* idolatry, evil, as destructive.)
And here are 3 – “Names” – “Titles” – of God, you can find in the Bible…
Shepherd – Leader – Reverend -Aren’t these “Titles” of the LORD thy God?
1 – Shepherd – God/Jesus is called – Shepherd
The Lord is my *shepherd.* Psalm 23:1.
…returned unto the *Shepherd* and Bishop of your souls. 1 Pet 2:25.
…they shall Hear MY Voice – there shall be – “ONE” *shepherd.* John 10:27
2 – Leader – God/Jesus is called – Leader
And do NOT be called *leaders;* for “ONE” is your *Leader,* that is, Christ.
Mat 23:10 NASB.
God exalted him at his right hand as *Leader* and Savior…
Acts 5:31 ESV
3 – Reverend – God/Jesus is called – Reverend
…holy and **reverend** is his *name. Psalm 111:9 KJV — (*name. = shem)
Hmmm? What about – Todays – Shepherds – Leaders – Reverends – ?
Aren’t these *Names* “Titles” of the LORD thy God?
What if “Todays” – pastor/leader/reverends…
Are taking God’s Name in Vain? – Shouldn’t we warn them?
Yea, they are greedy dogs which can never have enough,
and **they are shepherds that cannot understand:**
they all look to their own way, everyone for his gain, from his quarter.
Isaiah 56:11
LikeLike
Only those appointed to receive salvation will believe:
“And when the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord, and as many as were appointed to eternal life believed.”
Only those given by the Father to the Son will be saved:
“All that the Father gives to me will come to me, and the one who comes to me I will never cast out.”
LikeLike
Ed,
At 9:41 AM you said, “Faith is NOT A GIFT, neither is repentance.” At 9:46 I agreed with Brian that “Both faith and repentance are gifts from God.” I think you meant that Faith and repentance are not gifts because we all have the ability to exercise them. I meant that they are gifts, albeit they are gifts possessed by all of us. Either way, I think maybe we were both making the point that we all have the capacity to exercise faith and repentance. So, if I understand where you are coming from, we managed to make the same point by ON THE SURFACE disagreeing with each other. Nothing of any significance here (so far as I can tell). I’m just embracing amusement where I can find it.
LikeLike
Brian,
At 11:44 AM, you are limiting God’s mercy and love, not to mention the efficacy of the Cross. I encourage you to fully embrace and take the following verse at face value:
. . . we have our hope set on the living God, who is the Savior of all people, especially of those who believe. (1 Timothy 4:10b, ESV)
Now, I readily acknowledge that this verse contains the word “especially,” but this word is only a qualitative, not a quantitative, limitation. If you are going to accept the clear teaching of Scripture, you must do so with regard to this verse also. Otherwise, you must admit that Scripture contains error, or so I submit.
LikeLike
Brian, for as many proof texts you can quote implying people cannot repent and believe, we can quote showing they are told to do exactly that. I would suggest you read them all in an interlinear and understand you are reading Hebrew thinkers writing in Greek!
Another misnomer is that Calvinist automatically think we do not believe the One True God has any input into the process. That is false. I believe it is synergistic or else we are talking about Allah and not the One True God. I believe we must repent and believe.
Here is one for you read through the Calvinist filter:
Mark 10. How could Jesus LOOK AT HIM AND LOVE HIM and not appoint him to eternal life? Was He “loving” him while consigning him to hell because he had no volition to choose God? In your Calvinist ST, there is no room for the rich young ruler to have any choice. God has to choose him. Yet, God in the flesh, looked at him and LOVED him and did not appoint him to be one of the chosen. In your construct there is no way out of this dilemma that this rich young ruler was not granted ‘faith’ and “repentance” in order to be saved.
LikeLike
The statement that God is the Savior of all people, especially of those who believe could seem to teach universalism, that every person will eventually go to heaven. However, the rest of Scripture clearly denies this idea (see note on 1 Tim. 2:4). There are several other possible explanations for this phrase: (1) It means that Christ died for all people, but only those who believe in him are saved. (2) It means he is offered to all people, though not all receive him. (3) It means “the Savior of all people, namely, those who believe” (a different translation of Gk. malista, based on extrabiblical examples). (4) It means “the helper of all people,” taking Greek Sōtēr, “Savior,” to refer not to forgiveness of sins but to God’s common grace by which God helps and protects people in need. (5) It means “the Savior of all kinds of people, not Jews only but both Jews and Greeks.” In any case, the emphasis is on God’s care for the unsaved world, and in the flow of the letter Paul is stressing once more (cf. 2:3–5) that God’s will that people would be saved is the basis of the universal mission (cf. Matt. 28:19–20). Update: Taken from ESV Study Bible
Mod ed: Added copyright source p/request.
LikeLike
Lydia,
I believe the rich young ruler WAS saved. We don’t know one war or the other definitively, but immedately following this discourse with the ruler, Jesus makes the statement about how difficult it is for rich people to enter the kingdom. The disciples respond by saying, “Then how will ANYONE be saved?”, to which Jesus replies, “With man this (salvation) is impossible, but with God all things are possible.” I believe Jesus was hinting that the rich young ruler eventually would be saved because it would be God who would do the saving.
LikeLike
Brian, I got in trouble with you for arguing from silence earlier in the thread. The problem is that Jesus says, “all things are “possible” with God. But do you not see the bait and switch cruel game played if the RYR was “chosen” later instead of being an example of his forced grace right then? If the RYR has NO choice in the matter then we have a bigger problem with this determinist god you guys want us to believe in.
LikeLike
RYR? Help – – need interpreter.
LikeLike
So, are you denying that Jesus states in this passage that entering the kingdom is impossible with man?
LikeLike
Rich Young Ruler
LikeLike
Well, since I keep seeing all the “negative” references to Calvinism, I figured I’d go ahead and make it official:
“The old truth that Calvin preached, that Augustine preached, that Paul preached, is the truth that I must preach to-day, or else be false to my conscience and my God. I cannot shape the truth; I know of no such thing as paring off the rough edges of a doctrine. John Knox’s gospel is my gospel. That which thundered through Scotland must thunder through England again.”—C. H. Spurgeon
LikeLike
JA, sorry!
Rich Young Ruler.
I have to stop that!
LikeLike
“So, are you denying that Jesus states in this passage that entering the kingdom is impossible with man?”
Not at all. I said earlier I believe salvation is synergistic. What we do know is that Calvin teaches that God chooses us before the foundation of the world and man has no input at all. He also teaches we are guilty FOR Adam’s sin.
When one reads the rich young ruler passage with that paradigm, we have a problem with your description of god being more Allah than the One True God of Abraham. Jesus “looked at him and loved him” YET CHOSE NOT TO SAVE HIM right in front of everyone. So what was the “love” about?
LikeLike
The old truth that Calvin preached, that Augustine preached, that Paul preached, is the truth that I must preach to-day, or else be false to my conscience and my God. I cannot shape the truth; I know of no such thing as paring off the rough edges of a doctrine. John Knox’s gospel is my gospel. That which thundered through Scotland must thunder through England again.”—C. H. Spurgeon”
Oh dear. Calvin and Knox have something in common. Both premeditated murder “In the Name of God”. I would not want to be either of them. Both wrote defenses for it. Knox in the form of a sermon. Calvin in his “Defensio”. (Calvin wrote to his friend that if Servetus ever came to Geneva, he would not leave alive and later he made that come true when Servetus came to hear him preach and Calvin had him arrested. He could have let him leave Geneva, but no. Servetus had to be punished for daring to mark up the Institutes and send them to Calvin disagreeing with him years earlier. Calvin had ego issues)
Nice guys you learn from, Brian.
LikeLike
Where does it say that God chose not to save him? We don’t know what ultimately became of the ruler.
LikeLike
Brian quoted:
Looks like hero and doctrine worship to me. Only one reference to God.
LikeLike
Speaking of hero and status worship in Churchianity, look at this: http://www.rts.edu/site/chancellor/congratulatorymessages.aspx
Look at all of the names and titles, institutions, accolades.
Compare that to this:
Jesus of Nazareth, carpenter
LikeLike
Compare that to this:
Jesus of Nazareth, carpenter
Exactly!
LikeLike
“Where does it say that God chose not to save him? We don’t know what ultimately became of the ruler.”
Exactly. What we DO know is that God in the Flesh chose not to “choose” him right then and there since He does the “choosing” and we have no input.
LikeLike
Brian,
At 12:52 PM you attempt to explain away the assertion in 1 Tim 4:10 that “we have our hope set on the living God, who is the Savior of all people.” (ESV). You offer five suggestions as to how this passage could MEAN something other than what it SAYS. Notwithstanding I ordinarily insist on dealing with what Scripture SAYS, as opposed to what somebody says it MEANS, I would like to compliment you as being extraordinarily accomplished in the sport of mental gymnastics, as well as in the art of intellectual contortionism.
Unfortunately, there is a reason I cannot compliment you. The compliment would be misdirected. You see, in my opinion, you have been caught in an act of intellectual theft. Your comment of 12:52 PM appears to be an unattributed, verbatim, plagiarism of the ESV Study Bible commentary on 1 Tim 4:10.
LikeLike
I never said it was my words. I have not been “caught” in any act of intellectual theft. You guys are getting funny!
LikeLike
Julie Anne,
If you are familiar at all with Spurgeon, you will know that he is in no way worshiping people or a doctrine.
LikeLike
Brian said on 8/17 @ 7:17PM,
“Romans 5:18 –
Therefore, as ONE trespass led to condemnation for ALL men,
so ONE act of righteousness leads to justification and life for ALL men.
ONE trespass=Adam’s sin resulting in a damnatory sentence (a declaration/judgment of damnation) against ALL people.
ONE act of righteousness=Christ’s atoning sacrifice resulting in act of God declaring MEN righteous and free from guilt and acceptable to him.
Those who fall into the second group (those being declared righteous by God) are determined by verse 17: they are, “THOSE who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the ONE man Jesus Christ.””
NOTE: I capitalized the words ONE & ALL &MEN & THOSE in his comment. I made no other changes.
Brian does four things in an attempt to prove his claim/theology of total depravity, original sin.
1.ALL: His argument changes the meaning of all. The word ALL means ALL, always, all the time! ALL does not mean all sometimes but then means some sometimes. The Greek word PANTAS was used each time for all. Pantas means all, every.
2.ALL is taken out: Brian does a switcheroo on the word all. Now you see it, now you don’t. He actually leaves the word ALL out in defending his claim. He omits it. Yikes! Take a close look:
1 & 2. I hope everyone see’s what Brian did. He used ONE & ALL as the ESV Bible reads in the first part:
ONE trespass (Adam) = ALL condemned
But then he does a switcheroo. He uses ONE again but then changes ALL men to men (he implies some):
ONE act (by Christ) = SOME MEN are righteous
3.Omisson: He uses verse 17 to define ALL, yet he doesn’t include the whole verse. He leaves out the first part! Hmmm. Maybe because the whole verse says, “For it, because of ONE man’s trespass, death reigned through that ONE man, much more will THOSE who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the ONE man Jesus Christ.”
4.Brian cherry picks within verse 17! He choses the last half of verse 17, because it bolsters his claim. But he leaves the first half of verse 17 out, because it REFUTES his claim! This is a repeat of his Psalms 51 debacle, but it’s worse because he cut out part of the verse that doesn’t agree with him. If this were a baseball game, he’d be called for pitching a spitball & suspended! Play fair, Brian! Stop spitting, cutting & pasting.
So verse 17, ONE trespass = ONE man’s death BRIAN LEAVES IT OUT!!!
This is counter to the very next verse, verse 18, ONE trespass=condemnation against ALL.
Brian says verse 17 THOSE who receive grace replaces verse 18’s ALL to SOME who are justified. If that’s true, then verse 17: ONE death replaces verse 18’s ALL to just ONE condemned (Adam).
I don’t think this is an honest, forthright way to go about convincing anyone, but ya’ll will can come to your own conclusions.
My thoughts on these verses:
Because Adam sinned, sin entered the world, not men. The world was pure & innocent before. There was no sin in the world before. Adam’s (& Eves) sin caused Spiritual death. Physical death was caused by leaving the garden of Eden. They could no longer eat of the tree of life. This is why many throughout history try to find Eden, to find the tree of life, eat & live forever.
All men sin. Not all babies, toddlers, children. The word men in these verses implies age of adulthood, age of accountability. There was sin in world before Moses law (the written law).
** In Romans 5:18 we need to look closely at the words LED, LEAD = both are Eis in Greek which means toward, into. The question is does this word, Eis, mean forced to sin? Or does it mean influenced, tempted, toward, into sin? I say the latter. Now the world is sinful, & there are all sorts of temptations, the devil tempts & there is great influence to sin. In the garden of Eden, they had one temptation, not to eat of the tree in the middle of the garden. See the difference?
So let’s also think about these verses as part of the whole counsel of the Bible, beginning to end. Using wisdom, reason, what we know about right & wrong, & with the loving help of the Holy Spirit.
Do we believe God forces people to sin because one man, Adam, chose to disobey God? Why do we punish anyone for forcing someone else, if that’s the case? They are following Jesus, right? NOT. That right there is a red flag, since Jesus never forced anyone.
** If we believe God forces people to sin, then we must be consistent with that word LEAD in verse 18 in the rest of the sentence:
so ONE act of righteousness LEADS to justification and life for ALL men. LEADS there must mean God forces people to be justified. Humans are robots, then. And robots are never ever responsible for their own actions. Tell the kids they’re robots. Why punish them or even ask them to do right? It’s futile. NOT. NOT. NOT.
And we need to ask ourselves why we would get upset if we were found guilty & punished for eternity for something that someone else did? In this case, Adam? Would Brian be okay with his child being sentenced to life in prison for something the neighbor’s kid did? Doesn’t God say He’s a better parent than we are (Matthew 7)?
Ezekiel 18 God says there are no generational curses. The son, if he is righteous, will not be responsible for his fathers iniquity. The son does not bear the guilt of the father.
Exodus 20:4-5 generational sin, you say? Physical, earthly consequences, not eternal damnation. Example, father’s sin does harm children if father neglects them, abuses them, fails to teach them, etc. That does not mean children are accountable for their father’s sin. Yikes!
Brian, Do you believe this because you’ve thought, read up on both sides, prayed? Or do you sit under & are dazzled by people you admire & that you feel you owe your growing faith to? I understand being thankful. But you don’t have to stop thinking in order to defend them or feel obligated to them. Especially when they’re wrong.
Brian, your boat is sinkin’. Might be time for you to jump ship & climb aboard! 🙂
LikeLike
@ Brian,
Your August 18, 2013 @ 6:00 AM comment was from John Gill.
It’s just honest/transparent to state whose words you are using. Otherwise, people might think those are your own words. It really goes without explaining.
LikeLike
A Mom,
“The word ALL means ALL, always, all the time!”
Really? You sure about that?
“and you will be hated by all for my name’s sake. But the one who endures to the end will be saved” – Was Jesus telling the disciples that every human being would hate them? All means all, always, all the time, right?
And they came to John and said to him, “Rabbi, he who was with you across the Jordan, to whom you bore witness—look, he is baptizing, and all are going to him.” – Did John the Baptist’s disciples mean that EVERY single person as going to Jesus? EVERY one? Had they gone to Jesus yet? All means all, always, all the time, right?
“Come, see a man who told me all that I ever did. Can this be the Christ?” – Did the woman at the well really man that Jesus told her EVERY SINGLE THING SHE HAD EVE DONE? Every one, from birth until that point? All mean all, always, allthe time, right?
Early in the morning he came again to the temple. All the people came to him, and he sat down and taught them. – Did every single person alive come to him? All mean all, always, everytime, right?
But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you. – Was Jesus telling the disciples that the Holy Spirit would actually teach them ALL THINGS THAT COULD BE KNOWN? He said all things, and all mean all, always, all the time, right?
There are perhaps hunderds of examples like this to show that ‘all’ does not necessarily mean all, always, all the time. Context determines what ‘all’ means.
LikeLike
Ok Gary, let’s let Scripture just say what is SAYS. Here is what God SAYS in Scripture:
I form light and create darkness, I make well-being and create calamity, I am the Lord who does all these things. – Is.45:7
Does disaster come to a city, unless the Lord has done it? – Amos 3:6
Is it not from the mouth of the Most High that good and bad come? – Lam.3:38
LikeLike
Now that’s funny right there, a plagiarist lecturing about context.
LikeLike
Re: Brian’s claim that it is not plagiarism to reproduce copyrighted material without attribution, so long as you don’t make the claim that what you have reproduced is your own:
Dictionary.com defines plagiarism as “an act or instance of using or closely imitating the language and thoughts of another author without authorization and the representation of that author’s work as one’s own, AS BY NOT CREDITING THE ORIGINAL AUTHOR. (Emphasis added) See http://tinyurl.com/9f8k4mb
At Wikipedia.com we learn that “cases of plagiarism can constitute copyright infringement.” Well, duh! See http://tinyurl.com/n3trjhz
Brian, if you can’t figure this stuff out for yourself, you need to consult with a lawyer who has some expertise in intellectual property law. You could get yourself in big trouble.
LikeLike
Gary,
You had said:
” I think you meant that Faith and repentance are not gifts because we all have the ability to exercise them”
No, I meant what I said, that faith is not a gift, and neither is repentance. I did not qualify it with anything. God did not give us faith. He gave us a promise and we believe that promise. That belief is our faith. The belief was not given to us.
Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
Dissect that using the Strong’s Concordance.
Substance is assurance.
Assurance is a pledge or promise (WHAT WAS PROMISED?)
Hope is expectation.
Expectation is anticipating something to take place, i.e. waiting for it.
The Bus is coming at 2. I have faith that it will be here.
What does that mean. It means that I know that the bus will be here at 2, I am just waiting at the bus stop for it to come.
Faith isn’t that complicated to understand. So, no, I don’t mean it the same way that you do.
Ed
LikeLike
Thanks Ed. I often need setting straight.
LikeLike
Brian said:
“Only those appointed to receive salvation will believe:
“And when the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord, and as many as were appointed to eternal life believed.”
Only those given by the Father to the Son will be saved:
“All that the Father gives to me will come to me, and the one who comes to me I will never cast out.”
My response:
More specifically your statement:
“Only those appointed to receive salvation will believe”
and
“Only those given by the Father to the Son will be saved:”
The references that you provide to attempt to prove your point does not state what you stated.
You gotta dig much deeper than that.
I covered this once with the J.W’s years ago, as they believe that only 144,000 are chosen of God to reign in heaven, and all the other J.W’s will be on earth with Jesus.
Also, they don’t believe that Jesus is God to begin with, and that adds fuel to my fire.
I need to dig that out and so that I can fight fire with fire with your references. Trust me. I can do it. I used to fight fires in the Navy.
Ed
LikeLike
Brian, Our Bibles are translations. English is not the language in which the Jews or Greeks wrote. Are you looking at the Greek word?
Also, you don’t proof text a Greek word for meaning in a particular verse by trying to find the English word throughout the whole Bible. Many different words are translated by using the same English word. I’m not sure you get that.
The “ALL” word you use is a different Greek word in at least one of your other examples.
Disappointed you ignored my Psalms 51 comment. Seems like you cherry-pick a lot. Is that what you want the readers of this blog to come away with? You ignore, yet continue to regurgitate. Time to self-examine, Brian. Not a good strategy. Nor is it fair play. Please response about your position on the meaning of Psalms 51.
LikeLike
Brian said at 12:52 pm
“The statement that God is the Savior of all people, especially of those who believe could seem to teach universalism”
My response:
No one here is teaching universalism. What we are saying is that Jesus provided for all, he took everyone’s punishment, and it is up to the individual to either believe, or reject.
NO ONE can either believe, or reject until they are given the facts of the case.
Then, and only then, they make a decision from their own minds, their own free will.
THOSE WHO HAVE NO KNOWLEDGE OF GOD OR JESUS ARE SAVED BASED ON ROMANS 2:14-16…CONSCIENCE.
Ed
LikeLike
Brian, You act like this is a firing range, shooting away. Have more respect. Treat this arena like a tennis match, we volley ideas back & forth. Question & answer, reply & respond. What you’re doing is not cool. And it makes you look like the bad guy.
LikeLike
Brian,
Is that a “cut and paste” that you did at 12:52? Because that sure doesn’t look like an explanation that came from your mind, but someone else’s mind.
All of your talking points are direct from a Calvinist check list.
When I used to study out the JW’s, they have a little brown book, called, “Reasoning from the Scriptures”.
They carry around that book everywhere they knock on doors. It has answers to every question that anyone at a house would ask.
There is a section, for example
IF a Hindu asks you this, you will answer with this…
If a Jew asks you this, then you will answer with this…
If this question is asked, then you will respond with this…
NONE of it came from their heart. It was all scripted.
I feel as tho all of your responses are a modification of a script.
Ed
LikeLike
A Mom,
I responded directly to your assertion that “all” means all, all the time, always. I showed it does not by citing several other references where “all” does not actually mean every person. Can you address my examples and either refute what I said or agree that ‘all’ does not always mean all.
And, I’m not worried about “looking” like the bad guy. I’ve been viewed that way since the article was published.
LikeLike
“Please response about your position on the meaning of Psalms 51.”
Sure.
“Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me.”
The psalmist is stating, not that his birth or conception was a sin, but that he inherited a sin nature, which existed ever since his conception.
LikeLike
Brian,
You stated:
“The psalmist is stating, not that his birth or conception was a sin, but that he inherited a sin nature, which existed ever since his conception.”
So, you agree that we are born “IN” sin, rather than “WITH” sin, right?
Being born “IN” sin means that we are born into a world where sin exists, not that any sin was committed.
But what about them bones rejoicing, as was asked a few times?
Ed
LikeLike
my entry at 12:52 is from the ESV Study Bible…
LikeLike
Thanks, for that info, Brian. I’ll go ahead and add it.
LikeLike
Brian,
Let’s also get back to my original:
I know that you completely ignored it, in your attempt to redirect. So, since you may have forgotten, here it is again. Notice that I do NOT limit the topic just to Romans 5:13. I go thru it thoroughly. This is a 3rd submission to you.
Romans 5:13
(For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.
Romans 7:8
…For without the law sin was dead.
When sin is dead, it has no power. Sin only has power when sin is alive.
If you are dead to sin, then you are alive to God. If you are alive in sin, then you are dead to God (dead in sin and trespasses).
Romans 3:20
…the law is the knowledge of sin.
1 John 3:4
…sin is the transgression of the law.
Romans 5:13
…sin is not imputed when there is no law.
Romans 4:15
for where no law is, there is no transgression.
Romans 4:8
Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin.
Romans 5:13
sin is not imputed when there is no law.
So, let’s see how this works in regards to Paul in Romans 7
Romans 7:9
For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died.
That fourth word, “alive” is in regards to spiritually alive, which IS “not separated from God”. That last word , “died” is in regards to spiritual death, which IS separation from God.
Paul was SPIRITUALLY alive before he had KNOWLEDGE of the law.
Romans 3:20
…for by the law is the knowledge of sin.
Romans 7:7
I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.
So, let’s put this in order:
Romans 7:7-9
7 What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.
8 But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. For without the law sin was dead.
9 For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died.
Once you die spiritually, you must be born again spiritually. The word AGAIN has significance.
When we are born of the flesh, we are also born of the spirit.
Knowledge of good and evil is a prerequisite to spiritual death.
Once we die that spiritual death, we must be born again…a spiritual resurrection from spiritual death.
The age of accountability is WHEN YOU GET KNOWLEDGE OF GOOD AND EVIL, regardless of age.
Now, getting back to Romans 5:
Death reigned from Adam to Moses (Moses, being everyone under the law of Moses). Verse 14
Under Jesus, death does not reign.
Verse 12 is the physical death of the body, whereas verse 14 is spiritual death.
In regards to verse 12, however, if you dissect 1 Cor 15:36-50, you will see that Adam was formed in a NATURAL dying body anyway. So, he was going to die a natural death anyhow.
There was a tree of life that he was to eat from in order to have OBTAINED eternal life. That was the WHOLE purpose of the Tree of Life in the garden.
He could have gotten eternal life EVEN IN A FALLEN STATE, but Angels blocked access to the Tree of Life so that he wouldn’t and couldn’t.
And due to the fact that he ate of the tree of death, he died a spiritual death IN THAT DAY.
Then God told him that he would return to dust where he came from. That was his body, of course. The reason that God told him that was NOT BECAUSE he LOST eternal life, but because he never obtained it.
What was the name of that tree in the Garden?
Is the PROMISED LAND nothing more than a piece of real-estate for the Jews, or is it also a spiritual interpretation of heaven?
Who got to go there, and why?
1. Those who have faith
a. Caleb,and
b. Joshua
2. Those who fall under Deuteronomy 1:39. NO KNOWLEDGE OF GOOD AND EVIL.
Deuteronomy 1:39
Moreover your little ones, which ye said should be a prey, and your children, which in that day had no knowledge between good and evil, they shall go in thither, and unto them will I give it, and they shall possess it.
Possess what? The Promised Land. What was the name of that tree in the Garden?
Now go back to Adam and Eve in the Garden BEFORE the fall. They had no knowledge of good and evil. Once they got knowledge, they died, spiritually.
That is the same with babies, just as it was for the Apostle Paul in Romans 7.
That is everyone’s life cycle. Innocent, until knowledge.
Ed
LikeLike
“Being born “IN” sin means that we are born into a world where sin exists, not that any sin was committed.”
By being born in sin, I would say means that, at conception, we inherit a sin nature that makes us sinners before we ever actually sin ourselves. That’s why I believe that we sin because we are sinners. In other words, before we ever sin we are sinners. Comitting a sin doesn’t make us a sinner. We were already sinners before ever sinning, thanks to Adam’s sin. That’s why Paul say that, due to Adam’s sin, all sinned. Since Adam represented the whole human race, when ha sinned, it was as if we all sinned too.
LikeLike
Ed,
I’ve already addressed Romans 5 numerous times. Just because I haven’t address it in the manny in which you specify doesn’t mean I have addressed it.
And what in the world are the bones rejoicing statement about?
LikeLike
Brian Thornton said, Sure. “Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me.” The psalmist is stating, not that his birth or conception was a sin, but that he inherited a sin nature, which existed ever since his conception.
5 Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity,
and in sin did my mother conceive me.
6 Behold, you delight in truth in the inward being,
and you teach me wisdom in the secret heart.
7 Purge me with hyssop, and I shall be clean;
wash me, and I shall be whiter than snow.
8 Let me hear joy and gladness;
let the bones that you have broken rejoice.
If it was easy as a, “sure I stand by my statement”, then you should have answered days ago.
Wow. I actually don’t think you can be reasoned with. This isn’t a volley back & forth of ideas after all, is it? Reason is futile with you. That’s sad when one decides to be a parrot. There is no comfort in that, Brian.
So clue us in. How much hissop do you use to purge your sins white as snow?
Why don’t you believe that Jesus’ blood purges our sins white as snow instead?
LikeLike
I’m sorry, I guess I’m just not bright enough to follow what point you are making about the hyssop. I do indeed believe that Jesus’ blood atones for the sin of all those the Father has given to him, his sheep.
LikeLike
Brian said, “In other words, before we ever sin we are sinners. Comitting a sin doesn’t make us a sinner. We were already sinners before ever sinning, thanks to Adam’s sin.”
That’s called getting the cart before the horse & then expecting to get a ride somewhere.
Brian, this isn’t even logical.
So a murderer never murders. A liar never lies. An adulterer never commits adultery. A thief never steals. A sinner never sins. You just eliminated Ray Comfort’s whole evangelism strategy, Brian.
LikeLike
My apologies, A Mom.
I am the only one on here in opposition to the views being put forth on here, and there are almost 800 comments. Believe it or not, I do have a life apart from this blog, and I am sure there are many questions aimed at me among these 790 comments that I never have gotten to.
LikeLike
Why is so hard to accept the idea that we are considered sinners before ever sinning (thanks to Adam representing us and giving us his sin)?
We certainly don’t have a problem being considered righteous when we actually are not (thanks to the second Adam, Jesus, representing us and giving us his righteousness).
LikeLike
Brian Thornton said, “I’m sorry, I guess I’m just not bright enough to follow what point you are making about the hyssop. I do indeed believe that Jesus’ blood atones for the sin of all those the Father has given to him, his sheep.”
You’re kidding me, right? Are you serious? I’m trying to wrap my brain around this.
You are out of control with the cherry-picking! Put the cherry-picker down & step away slowly.
Psalm 51:
5 Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity,
and in sin did my mother conceive me.
6 Behold, you delight in truth in the inward being,
and you teach me wisdom in the secret heart.
7 Purge me with hyssop, and I shall be clean;
wash me, and I shall be whiter than snow.
8 Let me hear joy and gladness;
let the bones that you have broken rejoice.
So you see verse 5 as the only literal verse in chapter 51? Or are you saying there is only one verse in Psalm 51, and it’s verse # 5?
LikeLike
I think Brian has an important point about being mindful that he is being asked to address a lot of questions and is in the hot seat so to speak. I appreciate that he has remained to wrestle these issues. These things take time and much thought.
Let’s be careful with our words so we can get our message across clearly.
Thanks, Brian, for the most commented post in SSB history 🙂
LikeLike
Brian Thornton said, “My apologies, A Mom. I am the only one on here in opposition to the views being put forth on here, and there are almost 800 comments. Believe it or not, I do have a life apart from this blog, and I am sure there are many questions aimed at me among these 790 comments that I never have gotten to.”
I get that. But you engaged me with 2 direct questions or statements (I don’t remember which it’s been days ago), not the other way around. I answered both timely.
Why engage me & then ignore my responses? It’s like you chose direct targets & follow it up with random shotgun blast regurgitation, instead of following up on the direct responses to those who you’ve decided to engage. And of course you’ll get feedback on the shotgun blasts. Maybe you’re reaping what your sowing. If you can’t handle the responses, slow down & engage thoughtfully. Just sayin.
LikeLike
A Mom,
Let’s look at all of chapter 51 to see if I see verse 5 as the only literal verse in the chapter. I will put the words LITERAL or SYMBOLIC after each verse to show what I think:
Have mercy on me, O God,
according to your steadfast love;
according to your abundant mercy
blot out my transgressions. – LITERAL
Wash me thoroughly from my iniquity,
and cleanse me from my sin! – SYMBOLIC
For I know my transgressions,
and my sin is ever before me. – LITERAL
Against you, you only, have I sinned
and done what is evil in your sight,
so that you may be justified in your words
and blameless in your judgment. – LITERAL
Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity,
and in sin did my mother conceive me. – LITERAL
Behold, you delight in truth in the inward being,
and you teach me wisdom in the secret heart. – LITERAL
Purge me with hyssop, and I shall be clean;
wash me, and I shall be whiter than snow. – SYMBOLIC
Let me hear joy and gladness;
let the bones that you have broken rejoice. – SYMBOLIC
Hide your face from my sins,
and blot out all my iniquities. – SYMBOLIC (God doesn’t have a face)
Create in me a clean heart, O God,
and renew a right spirit within me. – SYMBOLIC heart, LITERAL spirit
Cast me not away from your presence,
and take not your Holy Spirit from me. – LITERAL
Restore to me the joy of your salvation,
and uphold me with a willing spirit. – LITERAL
Then I will teach transgressors your ways,
and sinners will return to you. – LITERAL
Deliver me from bloodguiltiness, O God,
O God of my salvation,
and my tongue will sing aloud of your righteousness. – LITERAL
O Lord, open my lips,
and my mouth will declare your praise. – LITERAL
For you will not delight in sacrifice, or I would give it;
you will not be pleased with a burnt offering. – LITERAL
The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit;
a broken and contrite heart, O God, you will not despise. – LITERAL
Do good to Zion in your good pleasure;
build up the walls of Jerusalem;
then will you delight in right sacrifices,
in burnt offerings and whole burnt offerings;
then bulls will be offered on your altar. – SYMBOLIC
LikeLike
Thanks, Julie Anne.
LikeLike
A Mom,
Some of the verses where I have indicated SYMBOLIC I have done so because they use symbolic words to represent something else, like ‘heart” or “wash”.
LikeLike
Who decided what is symbolic and what is literal in this Hebrew poem of man talking to God? Can you give us a reference for those designations?
LikeLike
Brian said,
“Against you, you only, have I sinned and done what is evil in your sight,
so that you may be justified in your words and blameless in your judgment. – LITERAL
Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me. – LITERAL
Behold, you delight in truth in the inward being, and you teach me wisdom in the secret heart. – LITERAL
Purge me with hyssop, and I shall be clean; wash me, and I shall be whiter than snow. – SYMBOLIC
Create in me a clean heart, O God, and renew a right spirit within me. – SYMBOLIC heart, LITERAL spirit
Against you, you only, have I sinned. You said literal. I disagree. David sinned against Bathsheba & her husband, Uriah.
Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me. You said literal. I disagree. Babies in womb are not full of sin.
Behold, you delight in truth in the inward being, and you teach me wisdom in the secret heart. You said literal. Yet below for Create in me a clean heart, you said symbolic because it heart. I think God teaches us wisdom, not sure about “secret” heart.
Purge me with hyssop. You said symbolic. I agree.
LikeLike
Brian,
“By being born in sin, I would say means that, at conception, we inherit a sin nature that makes us sinners before we ever actually sin ourselves. That’s why I believe that we sin because we are sinners. In other words, before we ever sin we are sinners. Comitting a sin doesn’t make us a sinner. We were already sinners before ever sinning, thanks to Adam’s sin. That’s why Paul say that, due to Adam’s sin, all sinned. Since Adam represented the whole human race, when ha sinned, it was as if we all sinned too.”
My response:
The Strawman knows that you didn’t finish your religious dogma on the issue. Your religious dogma includes that Adams sin was imputed to all, meaning that not only do you receive a sin nature, but the sin of Adam comes as a GIFT from Adam, so that you have that sin of Adam, and therefore are guilty before God EVEN BEFORE BEING BORN.
What I find interesting about Calvinism, is that anyone can agree when anyone speaks Christianese. The problem is, only half of the story is given at a time.
For example, we all know that Jesus saves.
That is Christianese. No one disagrees with that statement.
But, if only half of the story is told, it is deception. Only later is it revealed that Jesus Saves…the people predestined from the foundation of the world.
So, I perceive that your answer above is an incomplete answer. The Strawman speaketh.
Ed
LikeLike
Brian,
You have not addressed it. You skirted the issue.
I am NOT discussing JUST Romans 5. I am discussing Romans 5:13, and you are not discussing Romans 5:13.
Moreover, you are not discussing Romans 5:13 AS IT RELATES TO ALL OF THE OTHER REFERENCES OUTSIDE OF CHAPTER 5.
No, Brian, you have failed to address it. You mentioned it, but not addressed it. You are more focused on all the other verses, so as to diminish it, as in making it not that important of a topic, minimizing it.
So, I ask again, address it.
Ed
LikeLike
I said LITERAL for David’s statement to God that against him and him alone did he sin because his sin against was not symbolic but literal. I agree that he also sinned against Uriah and Bathsheeba, but all sin is ultimately sin against God, which is what David is saying in this statement.
Regarding my statement above about being born in sin, why can’t you just address what I’ve said and leave out all the speculative inuendos about the rest of my supposed evil dogma? Instead of addressing my statement, you chose instead to take yet another swipe at Calvinism. With respect to my statement, that, my Arminian friend, is a straw man. 🙂
LikeLike
“Can you give us a reference for those designations?”
They are my designations based upon the context of the chapter and the wording used.
LikeLike
Brian,
Because it does not represent the whole story, therefore, it is not supposed, it is evil dogma.
We are not Arminians. Those people existed many many many years ago.
I am an American. I am a Washingtonian. I am a Seattlite. I am not Arminian.
I do not believe in what they believed in.
Why is the only two choices amongst the C camp either Calvinist, or Arminian?
Very strange.
Ed
LikeLike
“Regarding my statement above about being born in sin, why can’t you just address what I’ve said and leave out all the speculative inuendos about the rest of my supposed evil dogma? Instead of addressing my statement, you chose instead to take yet another swipe at Calvinism. With respect to my statement, that, my Arminian friend, is a straw man. 🙂 ”
Why not ask someone if they are Arminian first? And the answer to your question is that after talking with YRR/NC types for many years this is the progression. You end up after time watering down your own doctrine because when you hear it back it does not sound so good so you leave off those parts and look for parts of “agreement” so you can add them in later. The key is getting the person to agree first. That is the strawman and I have seen it probably hundreds of times since 2004 on blogs everywhere. . But since our definitions are different it can be a problem to even agree with something that sounds right. (There is a trust issue in talking with YRR/NC types)
And I think I have figured out the reason this happens. C’s hang around with C’s. They attend church with C’s and listen to C’s preach. They love their C gurus and many times I can guess what guru after talking to them for a while. They tend to live in what I call C ghettos with TGC and T4G and more. (like thinking) And if they read lots of Calvin and Luther, they tend to approach doctrine in the same fashion. “Are you submitting to your elders”– they might feel free to ask someone they barely know and have no relationship with. This is normal in their world. I see it all the time around me.
The same tactics used in that ghetto for disseminating their truths does not work in a larger context with people who have studied C and found it a problem. So this is a problem for one who has been taught only they have the true Gospel.
Calvinism requires some unity of thought reform and conformity to survive and that ends up being censoring and coercion. That is why it tends to surge then die out or go liberal over time. The political history of Calvinism is fascinating to study.
LikeLike
Lydia observes that “There is a trust issue in talking with YRR/NC types.” I have heard, and find validity in, the theory that people tend to sort themselves into different churches according to personalty types. I suggest that the individual congregations then tend to project their congregants’ personalities onto God. Therefore, you can tell what kind of personality will be predominant in a particular church by studying what they believe about God. Never, ever, get involved in a church where God is taught to be motivated primarily by a passion for His own glory, where he arbitrarily and capriciously “elects” who is in and who is out, where His power is emphasized to the near exclusion of His Love, where it is said that his Sovereignty is expressed in a deterministic control of, not just the weather, but of every human decision, and/or where it is said that he sees humans as being totally depraved. You will find yourself dealing with people who are very much like this god, which, again, they have created in their own image.
LikeLike
Excellent advice and so true, Gary. I would love to finally find a church, or a house, or even a park – ANYWHERE! – to meet with other like-minded local Christians. But at the same time, the idea scares me to death. Because the cruel determinist god creeps into even the most unlikely of places, and anywhere he is taught and/or promoted, anywhere his followers gather, is not a safe place for many.
LikeLike
Brian said, “I said LITERAL for David’s statement to God that against him and him alone did he sin because his sin against was not symbolic but literal. I agree that he also sinned against Uriah and Bathsheeba, but all sin is ultimately sin against God, which is what David is saying in this statement.
Regarding my statement above about being born in sin, why can’t you just address what I’ve said and leave out all the speculative inuendos about the rest of my supposed evil dogma? ”
Brian, you have been programmed, not by God (although you think we are robots), but by your religion. Ultimate is not the same as only. You super-impose your belief system onto the Bible. You say, “all sin is ultimately against God. So when David says he sinned only against God, that’s what he is really saying”.
What I’ve seen you do regularly to prove your point, this time also, is this: You make a truth claim. You say God is ultimate. You say sin is real. Well, yes, I agree with you. But then you use those truth claims to force a passage to say something it doesn’t. Example, you said: Sin is real. Sin is ultimately against God. Then you use those claims to say David said those truths when he says he sinned only against God. This is faulty logic. No, David said what he said.
It’s like me saying only the sun is hot. And then you would say well, the sun is real. Then you would say the sun is ultimately hot. Then you use those truth claims to confirm my statement is literally true. Nope, my sentence is still not literal. No, other things are hot (volcanoes, stoves, wives of C pastors I’ve been told are smokin’ hot). My statement that only the sun is hot IS NOT LITERALLY true. I said what I said. I am speaking tongue in cheek or describing how I feel. You can’t claim I’m telling the truth. Do you understand this?
David said what David said. Scripture says what scripture says. You can’t make it say what you want it to say.
BUT then you say for other verses, yes I agree with exactly what those verses say, because those are symbolic. This is called cherry-picking or twisting scripture.
David said he sinned only against God. David said he sinned in the womb (an impossible feat). David said hissop cleans his sins white as snow. These statements are not true. I refuse to twist scripture to say what I want it to. He was a poet. He was waxing poetic to describe how he feels. He was in anguish. He spoke out of sorrow. He wasn’t calmly & methodically setting out to pass on to us a certain serious theology at that moment.
Interesting then, that you say I need to stop the speculative innuendos. I think it’s the other way around. BTW, I’m not an Armenian. I don’t really know what they believe. But since you brought the C word up, I know I definitely don’t believe in Calvinism, the god of robots & computers. Is this Barbie doll relationship the same one God describes to desire & want with us? Nope. He longs for us to love him back & submit to him. Is that something any computer or action figure doll can do? Impossible. We are not dolls, robots, or computers. This is what your religion reduces us to. Please read the Bible yourself. God calls people stubborn, rebellious, pleads them to reason with him, he wants to teach them. That’s just a handful of chapters in Isaiah. Do robots love back? Can they?
LikeLike
“But since you brought the C word up”
For the record, I didn’t bring up the “C” word…someone else on here did.
LikeLike