* * *
One of the most popular debates on this blog is the Calvinism vs Arminianism debate that spontaneously shows up in threads. I have set up this blog post so the Calvinism/Arminian discussion can continue here, but not “overtake” other important articles. Part 1 had so many comments, over 1,000, the page was taking a long time to load, hence, Part 2.
I’ll use Ed’s post to start it off. Feel free to join in:
Hannah,
I hope you came over here:
You had said:
Hmmmm….well if there is no one there to preach the Word says they are without excuse… Romans 1 says he will reveal Himself to them…My response:
Romans 10:13-15King James Version (KJV)
13 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.
14 How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?
15 And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things!
Ed
Spiritual Sounding Board 
lol–I know where this debate leads 😉
The question is always “What about that person on that island that never heard”
That’s why I used Romans 1.
Someone used the verse “all”….as if to mean that salvation is open to everyone…
In researching these verses I have come to understand that the word “all” means that salvation is open to Gentiles as it was initially for Jews.
So “all” is not quantitative not qualitiative.
I know how some feel about John Macarthur, bit most of what I learned on the subject is from him.
It is interesting that at my old Calvary Chapel, a whole slew of elders were dismissed the subject yet at the Bible College at the same location they had a well respected (by school and faculty)reformed teacher there. I remember asking him when I met him in the cafeteria whether his doctrinal positions (even on end times) conflicted with the church’s and if that was an issue. He really just gave me a blank stare….. Go figure….
LikeLike
“So “all” is not quantitative not qualitiative.”
I meant BUT…qualitative…
Still not sure on the issue myself.
As with many issues.
LikeLike
“Someone used the verse “all”….as if to mean that salvation is open to everyone…
In researching these verses I have come to understand that the word “all” means that salvation is open to Gentiles as it was initially for Jews.”
Hmmm. Are there other “people groups” than Gentiles and Jews in NT metaphorical language?
Are you suggesting the Jews had their chance but don’t anymore?
Another reason your point makes little sesnse is there are “Gentiles” in the geneology of Jesus who chose Yahweh. (women!)
There are several front and center in the OT non Jews who chose Yahweh. In fact, in the NT, Cornelius was a proselyte (sp?) which means a Genile who believed in Yahweh. As was Lydia. They were seeking God when they learned about Messiah.
What I think happens upon reading scripture is people take metaphors waaaaay too far. And big name preachers love to have the answers for you.
LikeLike
I posted this comment on another thread in response to this comment:
Calvinism and the doctrine of election (that someone has no choice with regard to salvation) are one in the same from all that I have read.
It is pretty easy find vs. supporting election/predestination and also easy to find verses that don’t support it. Some passages that don’t support election/predestination include where it says:
This vs. basically says that some men are ignorant and excluded because of their hardness as in they don’t want or will allow God to reveal Himself to them.
There is another vs. that says that God desires all men to be saved and come to the knowledge of Christ.
If you choose to believe in Calvinism make sure you understand all that it stands for:
– God decides who will and won’t be saved. Those who God doesn’t give an “irresistible grace” to have no chance of ever being saved. Thus for parents no matter how you raise your kids if God doesn’t give them this “grace” then they won’t be saved.
– God says he “calls all men to repentance” but only gives some men what they need to be able to repent. It is almost like God is taunting some individuals.
Make sure you include all of what Calvinism stands for. It is great to teach on election and how God selectively chooses to save only some but also make sure you teach that some have no chance of becoming saved and make allowances for that. If you claim you believe in Calvinism don’t hold parents (such as leaders) accountable for their children not coming to Christ when you claim to believe that it is God who decides who becomes saved.
I am sure the debate over Calvinism vs. free will will continue till Christ returns. Just realize that there are scriptures to support both viewpoints.
LikeLike
Hannah: I would love to put the comment that Ed was referring to above his comment so we can get both sides on the post. In order to balance things out, can you give me the timestamp of the comment when you get a change and I’ll add it. Thanks!
LikeLike
I think JMac does a good job here of showing the tension between God’s election and man’s responsibility.
It’s worth a listen:
LikeLike
Lydia- Perhaps you jumped the gun with me.
Maybe you can clarify what you thought I meant.
By the way I am Jewish so take that into considering….
At the time of Jesus, you do agree that the gospel was meant for the Jews, right?
At Pentecost, the tongues was a sign to Israel so the gospel can be preached in their dialect.
From my understanding, there are Jews and Gentiles.
Lydia “Hmmm. Are there other “people groups” than Gentiles and Jews in NT metaphorical language?”
Not sure I understand the question.
LikeLike
JA ?
By the way I have every teaching on JMac on election. Have heard them at least 10 times each. He does talk about the verses that discount election yet states you can’t get away from the ones that do.
So I think that his approach is extremely balanced.
LikeLike
Mattjer
I have the CD on the video you posted.
His teachings on election (there are more than 4 I have) can be downloaded on his website.
LikeLike
JA ?
Hannah, You and Ed were engaged in a conversation when I said I’d like to move it to a specific Calvin debate thread. I was hoping to get the comment that Ed was responding to (in the body of the post) to balance things out.
LikeLike
There is a problem with what MacArthur is teaching in that video. He is teaching the tulip. He claims that because of Irresistible Grace…… Salvation is mongeristic. There is a simple passage that refutes this is totally. It is but one example. It involves the rich young ruler. How come Jesus looked at him and “loved’ him but refused him irresistible grace?
LikeLiked by 1 person
http://drreluctant.wordpress.com/?s=tulip
LikeLike
I just listened to the point by point sermon of John Mac Arthur here. I can hardly believe his audacity to assume that his interpretation is so right that the those of us who have rejected this doctrine of parallel truths are just too stupid to get it. Even he said he himself is too stupid to get it, but just believes it. Huh?Whu?I actually thought he was going to give me something to really ponder about this time.
If John Mac Arthur believes free will and God’s predestination for hell are parallel truths that are too hard for us to understand, why can’t he at least just drop the parallel line that he believes that some are actually destined to hell. Just give the good news that Jesus died and rose again to make a way back to God but you have to believe on Jesus in order to hop that train, and end it there.
He says he believes in scripture alone but he still tries to use logic to explain his interpretations even when he says his interpretations are too difficult to understand.
And all of his logic can have a counter logic.
For example: He says our spiritual birth cannot be a choice for us because our physical birth was not a choice for us. Then why can’t we use the free will logic that man chose to sin so man can choose life. Yes I know he attempts to answer that but his answer still always falls flat., it just all becomes pointless to me. But I’m supposed to just accept that there is a point but I have to wait until heaven or hell to get the point.
He also pulls in the Reformation for back up of his beliefs, that is not using scripture alone either. If one is truly claiming scripture alone, the only necessary other works that should be used are proper translations of the original languages, not the use of other people’s interpretations no matter how profound they might be.
He also says that because other scripture records places where God did orchestrate and direct and predestine that that carries over for his belief that all people have been predestined for heaven or hell. Wuh?
So I ask then, if God gave Adam the capacity to choose unbelief in God’s goodness and therefore fell into sin, why is it so hard to believe that every ‘adam’ has not been given the capacity to choose belief in God again? I do believe the Bible where it says no one can come to God without His drawing, but where does it say that only some will be drawn, why can’t we believe that he may have different timings for individuals but that everyone will at some time be drawn and given the choice? We all have different stories and only God knows where are hearts are at for either his use as a weapon as Mac Arthur likened to Assyria or if he wants us to be born again at a certain time or healed at a certain time or whatever. It does not break down the doctrine of his sovereignty as Mac Arthur accuses free will preachers of doing. It makes me trust his sovereignty more. It makes me awe over his magnificance more. I mean even man has figured out how to make robots. But will man ever figure out how to make a free will robot? No, because a robot is physical like our physicalness. I believe free will is a Holy Spirit/man spirit thing that can only be explained spiritually. That, I can accept.
The only clear thing I see in the scriptures is warnings that if we choose to hang on to unbelief we will not have eternity with Him. If we do find out someday that Mac Arthur’s interpretation was correct, well then we find out and then I suppose we will have some sort of understanding that makes us ok with God about it? and we won’t want to revolt against him about finding out our loved one didn’t stand a chance anyway? Or they in heaven thinking that about us? But why oh why should he put that stumbling block of the doctrine of predestination to hell for people that he just designed to or foreknew to go to hell when the preachers of it say they don’t understand it either. It just makes God look evil and them dumb.
LikeLike
Jesus, in Matthew, addressing those on His right hand, says, “Come, ye blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world.” Contrast this with the address to those on His left hand: “Depart from Me, ye cursed [He does not say of ‘My Father’], into everlasting fire, prepared [not for you, but] for the devil and his angels” (v. 41). So also, in Romans 9:22,23, when speaking of the “vessels of wrath” it says “fitted to destruction”—fitted not by God, but by themselves (see Romans 1). On the other hand, when speaking of the “vessels of mercy,” it says “which He had afore prepared unto glory.” The grand truth of election is fully established; the repulsive error of reprobation is completely avoided.
LikeLike
Patti
I think that sermon is one in a series. I don’t have the time now to search the website but I will.
Lydia “It involves the rich young ruler. How come Jesus looked at him and “loved’ him but refused him irresistible grace?”
Interesting you mention this because Jmac has a fairly recent teaching on the rich young ruler. The reason Jesus refused him was not because he loved his $ too much (as I learned at my CC), but because he said he kept the law. No one can keep the law. read the passage with that in mind.
LikeLike
JA I don’t even remember the thread.! Don’t you have access to it?
I need to take my meatballs off the stove and make spaghetti so I will come back later and look!
LikeLike
JA Is this it?Hannah quotes:
John 6:44
No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws them,
My response:
How does the Father draw them?
Answer: Through other people. You tell two people, and they tell two people and they tell two people, etc.
That is how the Father draws them. YOU Plant the seed. Another waters the seed, but God gives the increase. It still takes YOU to start the process by either planting, or watering.
1 Cor Chapter 3
Ed
LikeLike
Interesting you mention this because Jmac has a fairly recent teaching on the rich young ruler. The reason Jesus refused him was not because he loved his $ too much (as I learned at my CC), but because he said he kept the law. No one can keep the law. read the passage with that in mind.
”
That explanation just makes God into a moral monster. God gave them laws that he knew they COULD NOT keep? They had no choice in the matter?
LikeLike
“At the time of Jesus, you do agree that the gospel was meant for the Jews, right?
At Pentecost, the tongues was a sign to Israel so the gospel can be preached in their dialect.”
You have a very protestant view of the Jews even if you are one. It is too lenghty for me to get into here right now but no, the Gospel was meant for everyone. Jesus preached to the Jews for a reason because he was their promised Messiah. It was fullfilling prophecy. But he came to save the whole world. There was no plan B for the Gentiles.
I agree the tongues were for the diaspora who were gathered in Jerusalem for Passover/Pentecost who took it back to their pagan homes.
Sorry if I don’t get back right away, am having trouble with wifi.
LikeLike
:Interesting you mention this because Jmac has a fairly recent teaching on the rich young ruler. The reason Jesus refused him was not because he loved his $ too much (as I learned at my CC), but because he said he kept the law. No one can keep the law. read the passage with that in mind.”
It STILL does not matter if we are talking TULIP which JMAC was. Irresistable grace means God can override anything. Jesus looked at him and LOVED him and then consigned him to hell? That is your moral monster God.
YOu also may want to dig deeper on JMAC. He has changed some of his view in the last few years as he gets more in line with the YRR/. Paul Dohse has written about it. Not sure the date of this sermon series.
LikeLike
On the “good” in Rich young ruler” (JMAC)
The issue here is to challenge the sinner’s sense of goodness. Before you can talk about the gospel, before you can talk about salvation, before you can talk about the Kingdom and eternal life, and working the works of God, people must understand that they are not good. And that takes all the works out of it. This man had no true idea of goodness, therefore he had no real understanding of the law of God which he fastidiously studied or he wouldn’t have thrown the word “good” around casually and labeled a stranger with it.
Now as a Jewish religious leader, he should have known the Psalms…should have known the Psalms. And if he knew the Psalms, he would know that the Psalms say this, “There is none righteous, no not one.” There is none who is good.” “There is none who seeks after God.” All of that comes from the Psalms, but it is also collected by Paul in Romans 3. In Romans 3 verses 10 to 18, Paul collects sayings out of the Psalms, none righteous, no not one, none does good, no one. He borrows from Psalm 14, Psalm 53, Psalm 5, Psalm 140, Psalm 10, Psalm 36 and even throws in a verse from Isaiah 59. He collects from the Old Testament the testimony that no one is good, no one because good is not a relative reality, it is an absolute…it is an absolute.
What does it mean? To be perfect as your Father in heaven is perfect. As God says, “I am holy, I am holy, I am holy, I am holy, without sin, without flaw, without error.” It is perfect righteousness, perfect holiness, absolute goodness. The law is given to reveal that. How perverted had these Jewish people become when they took the law as a means to establish their own goodness when the purpose of the law was to reveal the goodness of God to which they could never attain? You understand the difference?
The testimony of the Apostle Paul would be very much like this young man. I see a lot of parallels. The Apostle Paul was doing really well for a while as a legalist, wasn’t he? Circumcised the eighth day, born of the tribe of Benjamin, Philippians 3, he goes through all of that. He says he was a traditionalist. He was zealous for the law. He was blameless before the law. He toed the line. He had all these credits to himself as a legalist. And then something happened to Paul which he speaks of in Romans 7:7, he says this, “I wouldn’t have come to know sin except through the Law.” Once he began to really understand the Law of God, he saw how sinful he was. What is the Law of God? The Law of God which defines for us sin and holiness is simply a revelation of the nature of God. God discloses His nature as holy in His Law. God has revealed Himself in His Law. And when Paul saw the reality of the nature of God in the Law and knew he couldn’t keep the Law, he said, “The Law killed me,” Romans 7, “It slew me, it resulted in death for me,” he says verse 10. In verse 13 of Romans 7, “Therefore did that which is good become a cause of death for me? May it never be. Rather it was sin in order that it might be shown to be sin by affecting my death through that which is good.” The Law is holy, just and…what?…good. True goodness is the nature of God and the true goodness of the nature of God is revealed in the Law of God. And when you measure yourself against the Law of God, you don’t come out as good as God. You come out bad.
You say, “What’s the purpose of that?” So that you’re slain, so that you’re devastated, so that you’re crushed and broken. Then the Law becomes, Galatians 3:24, the tutor that drives you to Christ who alone can save you from your own corruption.
The purpose of the Law is to kill, to crush, to show how perfectly good God is and how utterly evil man is, therefore to produce guilt and fear and dread and remorse.
Well the rich young ruler totally missed that. Totally. He had a superficial view of the Law like all legalists do, all phony religionists. His response is consistent with fallen human nature that thinks its good and the religious people think they’re better than everybody else. He is sure that he is good. He has met the Law’s demands. He is good. Since Jesus is a teacher, from God He’s good, too.
Here is the most damning delusion that any mind can ever believe, that I’m good. That’s it. That I’m good. When you tell people they are wicked, evil, corrupt, and not good at all, they don’t believe that. They didn’t believe it then, they don’t believe it today. People don’t believe that. So they go to hell believing they’re good. And until they believe they’re not, there’s no hope for them. Till you believe you’re not, there’s no hope for you.
So let’s find out whether this man is good, that’s Jesus’ agenda here. You’re throwing the word “good” around, let’s find out about goodness. No one is good except God alone. I’ll give you a test. You know the commandments. Matthew 19:17 says, he added, “And keep the commandments.” You know them. You know you’re to keep them. He gets that.
Jesus gives him some examples. “Do not murder. Do not commit adultery. Do not steal. Do not bear false witness. Do not defraud. Honor your father and mother.” And all of those except one is taken out of the second table of the Law, Exodus chapter 20 verses 12 to 16, the Ten Commandments. This is the second half of the Ten Commandments. So let’s go back to the second table of the Law, the first table deals with the relationship to God, the second with the relationships among people. So let’s just go to the human relationships, first of all, and see how well you’re doing on that one.
And his response, what is it? “He said to Him, ‘Teacher, I’ve kept all these things from my youth up.’” Wow! That’s why you’re good. You’re good because you’ve always kept that second table of the Law. You know what that shows you? The man is living in a delusion, first of all. But more importantly, he understands the surface of the Law but not the depth of the Law, because the Law goes much deeper than the surface. That’s why Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount, Matthew 5 verses 20 to 48, can’t go through all of that now, said this, “You have heard it said, you’ve been taught, but I say to you…” And He said it over and over and over and over. You’ve been taught that if you don’t murder, you’re fine. I ‘m telling you, if you hate someone, you’re a murderer in your heart. You’ve been taught if you don’t commit adultery, you’re okay. But I’m telling you, if you look on a woman to lust after her in your heart, you’ve committed adultery. This man didn’t understand the depth of the Law. If he understood the depth of the Law, he would know that he had hatred, that lustful thoughts were a part of his life, that desiring to steal, covetousness, lies, dishonor to his parents were part of the fabric of his wretched heart. The truth of the matter is, he says, “I’ve kept these from my youth up.” In all honesty, he had broken those that day because no sinner can live without impure thoughts. He shattered that law that day with his attitude toward others. He had broken the Law. He was a law breaker. And as a law breaker, he was worthy of death, and that’s what the Law is supposed to do, kill you, sentence you to death and divine judgment.
You think you’re fine because you’ve managed to control it on the surface. You’re not. He didn’t understand the depth of the Law. And there was more. He not only was a violator of the second half, he was a flagrant violator of the first half. You say, “What’s the first half of the Law?”
Well you know what it is. “You shall have no other gods before Me, make no idols, don’t take My name in vain, and remember the Sabbath to keep it holy.”
You say, “Well wait a minute. I mean, he was worshiping God. He probably certainly didn’t take God’s name in vain. He must have observed the Sabbath. And he certainly put God first in his life.”
Not really. He is a blasphemer. He has violated not only the second table of the Law, but the first table of the Law by being a blasphemer of God. And Jesus takes him now to the foundation of the Law and the foundation of the Law is in Exodus 20 verse 3 and it says, “You shall have no other gods before Me…you shall have no other gods before Me.” You don’t worship anybody but Me. God demands exclusive comprehensive total worship, Deuteronomy 6:5, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, and might.” And if you do that, you won’t have idols, right? And you won’t take His name in vain. And you won’t desecrate His day. It all flows out of the first.
How bad was this man? How far from good was this man? He not only regularly broke the second table of the Law in his heart, but he lived an entire life of blasphemy in which he worshiped another God. He shattered the first table of the Law. Every time he worshiped, he violated the first table of the Law. Every time the name of God slipped between his lips, it was taken in vain. And every time he went to a synagogue or the temple to observe a Sabbath, he was a blaspheming hypocrite.
LikeLike
By the way, my brother has been the President of his temple for 4 years. He thinks he keeps the law—he keeps Kosher and does a few other things. He thinks God is Ok with what he wants to do according to the law and what he doesn’t…
LikeLike
I just got home Hannah, and you had said:
““What about that person on that island that never heard”
That’s easy. Even a Catholic friend of mine agrees with me on this one:
Romans 2:14-16 (KJV)
14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:
15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;)
16 In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel.
Every person in the world has a conscience. Your conscience is your guide.
I must must must say that I do not at all believe in what is known as “original sin”
I can also go into huge detail about that, too, but my unbelief in “original sin” ties into this.
All of those amazon people with bones in their noses, and spears in their hands (Not Britney Spears), that have no knowledge…they are GENTILES, who have not the law. When they die, their conscience judges them.
The doctrine of original sin states that we are all born LOST, and DEPRAVED…sinners from the womb, doomed…hence the major fiasco in numerous doctrines within Catholicism, Lutheranism, and Calvinism about babies being baptized, and what happens if a baby dies, whether sprinkled with water, or if they were never baptized in the first place. What a bunch of nonsense. Babies are not lost to begin with, therefore, the only thing that is accomplished in baptizing a baby is that they get wet. Big deal. There is nothing spiritual that happens. Baptism is for the lost. Babies are not lost.
I will post more about this after a bit.
JA, thanks for this new thread!!
Ed
LikeLike
Hannah, wow, I didn’t know you were Jewish. Right on!! I am a HUGE defender of the Jewish people. Without the Jews, there would be no Christianity. As we should all know, the reformers had disdain for the Jewish people, including in Catholicism. This is the MAJOR, among other reasons, that I have no respect for reform doctrines. I have found that the Jewish people are a wealth of information to us, even tho they do not believe that Jesus is the Messiah. The reformers and Catholics look to “church fathers”. I look to the Jews. But the Jews seem to get a bad rap from ignorant Christians, bad mouthing them, saying stuff like, “They disobeyed God”, and “They rejected Jesus”, and “they murdered Jesus”, blah, blah, blah. Oh, but I had a Catholic friend of mine attempt to defend that position, by stating how much the Popes have done for the Jews. Ya, right. The last Pope wrote a book, exonerating the Jews for “murdering” Jesus. Huh? Didn’t Jesus already do that when he said, “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.”? And WHY did they not know? Was it because they were too stupid? NO! It was because that was the plan of God, for Jesus to die on the cross. Hello people!! LOL.
Ed
LikeLike
“Every person in the world has a conscience. Your conscience is your guide.
I must must must say that I do not at all believe in what is known as “original sin”
I can also go into huge detail about that, too, but my unbelief in “original sin” ties into this.
All of those amazon people with bones in their noses, and spears in their hands (Not Britney Spears), that have no knowledge…they are GENTILES, who have not the law. When they die, their conscience judges them. ”
– Interesting. So you’re saying that doctrine is wrong? When was it created? Council of Nicea?
Its been the cornerstone of all of Christianity since. Basically you’re saying the entire religion needs to be rethought then.
LikeLike
This is a write up that I did on another blog last week:
“I think what is missing in this whole thing is defining what Born Again is. Also, Jesus did say that no one can see the Kingdom of God without it. Just because it is only mentioned a couple of times does not diminish the requirement. But, I have yet to hear from any, no matter what denomination, what born again is.
Jesus made it clear that born again has nothing at all to do with the flesh. Therefore, I will not even mention the flesh at all in my explanation of what Born Again is.
The word, “again”, therefore, has huge, huge, huge, huge significance. And since Jesus was not discussing the flesh at all, which is CARNAL, then here is my explanation.
NOTE: The following few sentences and paragraphs I will go into further detail in another comment…this was just about Born Again, but MY unbelief of “original sin” ties into this.
I must preface my statement by saying that I am not a believer in “original sin”. My Bible references are Romans 7:7-9, Romans 5:13, and Deuteronomy 1:39…In conjunction with the same life experiences with Adam and Eve. We are no different than they. Ignorance is bliss, until they got knowledge of good and evil. Children do not have that knowledge (Deuteronomy 1:39). The death that is spoken of in Genesis is NOT physical death, but spiritual death. Contrary to popular belief in Catholicism, which was also passed down to the reformers (both Luther and Calvin), we are not born spiritually dead. We die a spiritual death. Just like Adam and Eve. We are no different than they. I know the discussions of Romans 5 very well. But, if you will notice, most who discuss Romans 5 skip over verse 13, putting ellipses between verse 12 and 14. I made a mental note of that long ago. Moving on…Since we die a spiritual death once we get knowledge of good and evil, we need to be made alive. Spiritual death is the SEPARATION of God from man. But if you will note, that God sacrificed an animal with Adam and Eve (BLOOD), and used the skins to “cover their shame”. These are spiritual terms showing that to maintain a “relationship” (in quotation marks because Gary does not believe in a man to God relationship), then a sacrifice is needed EACH TIME that a sin was committed. From that moment on, Adam sacrificed to God. There was no depravity of man in that. Then, many years later, Jesus comes on the scene stating that he is the last sacrifice ever needed. If you believe that…boom….saved. Anyway, Born Again is a SPIRITUAL resurrection from spiritual death. Since spiritual death is the separation from God, then born again is the RESTORING that which was LOST.
Let me further explain. LIFE is YOUR spirit “residing” in YOUR body. Death is when YOUR spirit departs YOUR body.
In like manner, SPIRITUAL LIFE is when God ALSO resides in your body. When you get the knowledge of good and evil, you then are aware of your own sin, and God’s spirit DEPARTS YOUR BODY, hence spiritual death.
Once God comes back into your body, that is a spiritual resurrection from the dead (in trespasses and sin). We are NOT born spiritually dead. We die a spiritual death. Born again is the resurrection from that spiritual death.
And, it was SO important that Jesus said that one MUST BE born again. Just because he said it once, it does not diminish his statement.
That, my friends, is BORN AGAIN.
Ed Chapman
LikeLike
RI RI,
Original Sin began with Augustine. So, yes, it needs another look.
First, look at Deuteronomy 1:39. Read it VERY CLOSELY.
Deuteronomy 1:39 (KJV)
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.
I am going to expound on this in my next comment…but for the moment, examine this…there are more bible references that I will mention, but I have to explain this one first.
Ed
LikeLike
The Promised Land. What is it?
Carnal things are given as an example of spiritual things.
The physical land of Israel is the Promised Land. That is the carnal. If we are only concentrated on the carnal, we will never be able to grasp the whole meaning of the Bible. Spiritual interpretation needs to take place. All of the top brass in Christendom talks a lot about the words, “Type and Shadow”. While those words are indeed in the Bible, I don’t think that they give ENOUGH thought about ALL of the carnal examples, re-interpreting them into the spiritual.
Take for example, the story of Jonah. Every time that I am in church, and the study of Jonah comes up, all they want to preach is what a bad man that Jonah was for not wanting to go to Ninevah, blah, blah, blah. Then, they make it a “how to live your life for God” topic, learning lessons from Jonah’s disobedience, blah, blah, blah.
I am NOT impressed.
Jesus called Jonah a PROPHET. Prophets of the Hebrew scripture prophesy about Jesus. What was the prophesy about Jesus? 3 days and 3 nights in the heart of the earth. Chapter 2 of Jonah needs to be reinterpreted into spiritual of the death of Jesus, and what HELL was like. No wonder Jesus had to ask people time and time again, “Have you not read?” Ya, they read, but they didn’t get it.
Anyway…one more break…be right back…I am not finished with this one yet.
Ed
LikeLike
The spiritual PROMISED LAND is HEAVEN.
Now, when you read about Moses, he was REDEEMER. Egypt was BONDAGE.
We sing song of the promised land. Have we ever bothered to listen?
Egypt is a spiritual SIN. Jesus freed us from the Bondage of sin. Are we seeing it yet? Moses/Jesus? Egypt/Sin? Physical Land of Israel/Heaven?
OK, if we have gotten a grasp of that, all of the dealings with the Jews in the wilderness is NO DIFFERENT than our own walk with God. We Christians are wandering the desert for 40 years (THE LIFE OF A CHRISTIAN) Struggling (Wrestling with God, and prevails). When we die (Cross the Jordan River), we enter into the Promised Land (Heaven).
OK, if we have got that so far…WHO GETS TO GO TO HEAVEN? (Caps are for Title Purposes only)
1. Those who have faith (Caleb, and Joshua), and
2. Those who have NO knowledge of good and evil.
Our life on this planet is NO different that the life of Adam and Eve.
Ignorance until knowledge. Ignorance = innocence. NO SIN can ever be counted, or imputed to anyone without knowledge.
IF we can grasp this, I will move on in the next comment.
Ed
LikeLike
Before I continue on:
Hannah, you had said to Lydia:
“Interesting you mention this because Jmac has a fairly recent teaching on the rich young ruler. The reason Jesus refused him was not because he loved his $ too much (as I learned at my CC), but because he said he kept the law. No one can keep the law. read the passage with that in mind.”
My response:
I know that Jmac (I hate that acronym, by the way…I am a fan of McDonalds, and having to say Jmac kinda ruins my liking for a MACDonals quarter pounder with cheese).
I have to fully fully disagree Jmac’s conclusion. Why? Jesus was under the law at that time. The law was not taken out of the way for those who believe until Jesus died on the cross. And, the Jews did keep the law. Sacrifices was part of that law. Due to sacrifices, the relationship between the Jews and God never ceased to exist. Sin separates, sacrifice reinstates.
Psalm 119:55
I have remembered thy name, O Lord, in the night, and have kept thy law.
This reminds me of the Calvinists repeating time and time again, “There is NO ONE righteous, NO NOT ONE.
And yet, I can show you lots of people from the Bible that states righteous people.
Luke 1:6
And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless.
And others as well. Let’s not take the word of Jmacaronie and Cheese.
Ed
LikeLike
Hannah, I would rather hear from you….. Your own thoughts….. Than cutting and pasting John MacArthur.
LikeLike
Hannah,
This goes back to my point that I said before of the question that Jesus would ask, time and time again…”Have you not read…?” In this case, Luke 1:6?
The Catholics are our bad example of taking the word of the “church fathers”, and not teaching to seek out the information in the Bible on your own, making up your own mind, and, as lydiasellerofpurple states, “Your own thoughts”.
It seems the Catholics have successfully passed down that unfortunate “tradition” to the reformers, too.
Ed
LikeLike
Ed, loving your comments. Fascinating thoughts to consider and think about as I start from near scratch and approach Christianity anew.
LikeLike
Lydia
I respect a man that has been in the Word of God for 45 years and devotes almost every waking hour to study of the scripture,( and has years of study in both Hebrew and Greek) far more than I would my own interpretation.
When I need a surgeon, I don’t rely on my own opinion.
It is apparent by your challenges that you do not agree with his theology, or you would not be bothered that I am using his words,
I pasted because I have read the transcript, and have heard the sermon, and the rich young ruler was discussed, and since you commented that he may have changed his theology, I wanted to paste exactly what I had stated he said about the ruler. Have you read it, and if so what do you think about it? That’s why I pasted it. I don’t have to defend myself. If that bothers you, I’m sorry. My thoughts are this- I am in agreement with what I pasted.
I said I have struggled with this doctrine of election and any conversation on the subject just exhausts energy. Dave Hunt has a very good book called “What kind of love is this” where he refutes election- He makes very good points as well.
LikeLike
Oasis – – Ed does have a way with words. They are simple and make sense.
LikeLike
Well, except when he’s talking about JMac cheeseburgers or whatever he called them. haha!
LikeLike
How can we have childlike faith with that kind of exhaustion? How can something so simple that scripture says children can understand reconcile with the complexity of what you describe? That’s why I had to shake my head at the Chalcedon thread with all of those 3 and 4-syllable words a certain commenter was using. The way he was talking, the gospel would be inaccessible to so many people.
LikeLike
Ed
I don’t think you read the transcript because you would understand why no one is righteous or “good under the law.
Have you read it?
I think you are missing the point.
Jesus was under the law but the law did not make anyone “good”..that’s the point.
I know from experience that when someone does not like this doctrine there will be a war and it’s not worth it.
So I will be backing out.
LikeLike
JA Its exhausting to battle the subject.
That’s what I meant.
It goes round and round because some people hate it to much they will want to battle.
I don’t, so it is exhausting to do so.
I have been on blogs for almost 8 years and have seen people get really angered on this subject.
LikeLike
You’re right – it is always a heated debate – – – which is why I try to steer people to this thread or it can overtake a whole thread.
LikeLike
I don’t follow any man’s theology. I go only by the Bible. I could care less what doctrines men make up. I will not be forced into believing anything other than the Word. I follow Jesus, not Calvin, Arminius, Aristotle, Augustine, Plato, etc.
LikeLike
WFTT2
Awhile ago I said to just do a search for scriptures on election.
I did that and it was enough to know it can’t be denied.
There are also verses to the contrary. “whosoever may come”.
When you say you only follow Jesus, what about Matthew, Peter, Luke, John, Jude, Paul, etc?
I think as experienced physicians have done their training , so have men who have devoted their lives and many years to learning Greek and Hebrew to translate the scriptures properly.
LikeLike
I think the Calvinists all need to get together and come up with a 5 point APP for Apple devices and another for Droid.
Of course a tab in the app would need to explain the murder of Sevetus and the slaughter of non-conformists during John Calvin’s rule in Geneve. At least 58 people were murdered, some burned at the stake on orders of the Presbyterian council headed by sir John himself. Some of these people were born again believers who just disagreed with infant baptism.
Yes My fellow Americans we arrived at our constitution and formed a Republic after hundreds of years of Doug Philips like characters coming to power and slaughtering people over issues of faith. Now go out and buy an Ar-15 so you can defend this nation when the theonomist devils try their little take over of our Nation. Ask yourselves do you really want elitist men like Doug Philips , Papa Botkin, and Scott Brown running our government, or worse yet replacing it ?
For the record I’m a ONE point Calvinist. I believe in the Total depravity of Calvinists.
LikeLike
Hannah,
I know where you are going with this, in regards to the law of Moses, however, you cannot for a minute discount Luke 1:6. There are many others. My point is that Romans 3 (There is no one righteous, no not one), in which you reference, and is widely referenced by Catholics and reformers but it had a context that is not related to what is being taught to you. The underlying reason that this is widely used, is to show how freaking pathetic we are as human beings, that we are too stupid and depraved to understand or respond to God. Really? I think not.
I stand by what I said, in that there are righteous people in the bible. So my question to you is this: HOW AND WHY were they righteous? God’s mercy and grace? NO. But by OBEDIENCE.
When you can answer that, without the help of someone who has been studying the word for 45 years, then you will have more knowledge than that person that has 45 years of studying the Bible. I am always critical of EVERY preacher, not just Calvinism. It is my hope that everyone is just as critical.
Ed
LikeLike
I do not follow (nor worship) Matthew, Peter, Luke, John, Jude, Paul, etc. I follow Jesus and worship Him. I study my Bible, and have read it 5 times cover to cover in the past year alone. I then go online and read them again using the Greek lexicons to help me understand from the language it was originally written in, and how words may have been changed in the translation.
LikeLike
Hannah,
So, we have experts of Hebrew and Greek…Big deal. Since they translated those languages to your native tongue, can you read? Do you have a concordance?
I don’t buy into that Hebrew/Greek Education thing. It’s already translated into your native tongue. Read it, and study it yourself. Heaven and Earth shall pass away, but my word will never pass away, Jesus said. Get to know His Word. On your own.
Ed
LikeLike
Thank you Oasis. I try to put things into an easy to understand way.
Ed
LikeLike
“I think as experienced physicians have done their training , so have men who have devoted their lives and many years to learning Greek and Hebrew to translate the scriptures properly.” Yes, but are they translating the Word to fit into their own doctrine, their own frame of mind, their own agenda?
LikeLike
Yes, Scott, the Calvinists are indeed totally depraved.
Ed
LikeLike
Well, like I always say…Calvinists don’t like me much, and bow out, way too quickly. Either that, or I am blocked on their own personal blogs, told that I need psychological help, and even more nastier things have been said to me by the Calvinists, such as, I am a heretic, I am demon possessed, etc. Then they give that ole 2000 year “orthodox” discussion about the church fathers. The so-called experts. Wow. I think they put on their pants the same way as I do.
Hey, didn’t the Pharisees tell Jesus that he hath the devil? Badge of honor!!
Ed
LikeLike
Continuing on with my unbelief in “original sin”, my next will be in regards to Romans 7:7-9…but I am taking a break for a few hours, so I will explain it when I wake up in the morning, but in the mean time, notice the last 3 words of verse 8, then the 4th word in verse 9, and the last 2 words in verse 9:
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.
LikeLike
I’m very late to this party but wanted to throw this out…
@Hannah DECEMBER 2, 2013 @ 9:13 AM
“The question is always “What about that person on that island that never heard”
That’s why I used Romans 1.”
It’s interesting to me that this passage is always the “go to”. I would have gone there years ago as well.
What changed? A couple of years ago I started hearing from friends that people in Muslim countries were coming to Jesus. Not through missionaries but because they were seeing Jesus, either in visions or otherwise. (http://www.wnd.com/2013/02/visions-of-jesus-appearing-to-muslims/)
Recently, a friend was in one of those countries as a missionary for a few months. He happened to be talking to a man who was a Kurd (Iraq). He happened to have a picture of Jesus in his wallet and when the man saw that, he pointed to the picture and said “I love him”.
I heard a man speak on one podcast telling about a friend of his who had a vision of Jesus while on a ship in the Indian Ocean.
Being slightly skeptical, I liked what I was hearing but realized the reports were all at least third hand.
Last month I was at a meeting where I heard Tamirat Layne speak (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tamirat_Layne). Layne gave his testimony telling the audience about being communist and atheist… Until Jesus appeared to him in his jail cell.
I am convinced that Jesus wants to reach the world and does this in spite of our abilities to reach them.
LikeLike
Deuteronomy 1:39 (KJV)
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.
_________
The “little ones” here meaning animals. Which ye said should be a “prey”.
Animals are preyed upon by humans for their flesh which non-vegetarians use as food and even lacto-vegetarians prey upon them for milk.
So basically animals and children have no knowledge between good and evil, in other words, they are innocent.
LikeLike
waitingforthetrumpet2’s approach to the study of very much speaks to me. Jesus is our teacher, and Scripture is our primary resource. The Bible comes close to being a necessary source, although people certainly have come to the Faith by word of mouth alone — probably even through visions and dreams alone.
However, I am leaning toward the view that Scripture, though (mostly) necessary, is not sufficient. For one thing I have come to the realization that Scripture must be put to use before it can be understood. Reading alone does not impart life transforming, heart level knowledge. Only living the faith, in relationship with Jesus, does that.
I would also say that we need each other, even in the acquisition of mere head knowledge. I learn from wftt2, and Hanna and Ed &c. Each one has insight I do not have. And, while caution is called for, I am with Hanna in valuing the contribution to be made by those who have studied Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek. Certainly N.T. Wright, to whom I am greatly indebted, comes to mind. It’s just that one needs to keep in mind that not even the scholars can reach common agreement, and we need to be aware that scholars seem more likely to be doctrinaire than we mere mortals — so we must test everything they say.
Which brings us back to wftt2’s approach. Prayerfully read the Bible. Test it against the original languages if you have the ability. Listen to what others have to say. Test them by observe the fruit of their doctrine and lives. Hold on to what it good. Remember that Jesus is our one teacher. Listen to Him.
LikeLike
In case anybody is wondering, when I wrote in my previous post about people coming the Faith through visions and dreams alone, I had not read what joelfrederick posted to the same effect at 8:36 PM.
LikeLike
I guess I’m a Berean. I study the scripture, and compare scripture against scripture, plus Greek/Hebrew lexicons to help with understanding.
LikeLike
@ Gary W
“I would also say that we need each other, even in the acquisition of mere head knowledge”
It’s not head knowledge I’m looking for (I have enough of that, I think), it’s heart knowledge I want. All those other doctrines are very big on “head knowledge”, but there’s no heart in it at all. It’s all just knowledge without relationship. It’s theories, doctrines, ideologies, rules, regs. It’s all in the head. Not the heart.
LikeLike
waitingforthetrumpet2,
You say, “[I]t’s heart knowledge I want.” Amen to that. While I’m not likely to abandon the pursuit of mere head knowledge, I need people like you to remind me what is important.
LikeLike
“It involves the rich young ruler. How come Jesus looked at him and ‘loved’ him but refused him irresistible grace?”
He did? How do we know? Did he have only “one chance” at salvation? Who is to say that this man didn’t believe, even if a long time later? Does Jesus always give salvation immediately on the spot, and damn those who don’t react without delay?
Hannah wrote re JMac: “The testimony of the Apostle Paul would be very much like this young man. I see a lot of parallels.” Actually, I rather believe that the rich young ruler WAS the apostle Paul, aka Saul of Tarsus. But here I think JMac completely misses the point. Jesus WAS confronting this man about his covetousness. When he asked Jesus which commands to keep, Jesus read all the commands in the second table – except ONE – and the summary of the second table, to love one’s neighbor as one’s self. He was an expert in the law. He would have instantly picked out the command Jesus missed, just as if you counted to ten and missed a number, any child would be able to pick out the number you missed! The command He didn’t read was the command against covetousness. And because of the missing commandment, he REALLY COULD say that he kept “all these.” Uh, all the ones Jesus read. And why did he go away? Because he couldn’t keep the law? NO! He went away because he owned much property…he was covetous.
LikeLike
JoelFrederick,
Extremely great point that you bring up. I’ve heard much of the same that you state. There is a country near Spain called Basque. One of the two church’s that I attend hosts Basque students in the summer months. Basque is a country that doesn’t know the bible, nor Jesus. But, after the first student hosting, these kids attended the church and are bringing the gospel back to Basque. And, there was a testimony about Jesus appearing to one of the college students in the passenger seat of his car. Now, I know that some will think that these kind of stories are way too far fetched to be true, but I cannot discount them. I know how the Calvinists discount the “gifts”, so how on earth will they ever believe testimonies as what you have stated? I believe it, tho.
Ed
LikeLike
RI RI,
You had said:
“The “little ones” here meaning animals. Which ye said should be a “prey”.
Animals are preyed upon by humans for their flesh which non-vegetarians use as food and even lacto-vegetarians prey upon them for milk.
So basically animals and children have no knowledge between good and evil, in other words, they are innocent.”
My response:
I will let you make that determination once you get yourself familiar with, as Paul Harvey would say, “The Rest of the Story”.
Ed
LikeLike
Gary W,
You had said:
“Which brings us back to wftt2′s approach. Prayerfully read the Bible. Test it against the original languages if you have the ability. Listen to what others have to say. Test them by observe the fruit of their doctrine and lives. Hold on to what it good. Remember that Jesus is our one teacher. Listen to Him.”
My response:
For the most part, I agree with everything you said in that particular comment, but I find much disagreement with the folks that you mentioned as people with great knowledge. However, that being said, there is really only ONE WAY to really test things out. I always hear people say, “I will prayerfully consider…”.
I am sorry, but what does that mean in English? Prayerfully consider? To me, it takes much more than just prayer. It takes prayer AND:
1. College ruled paper
2. A dozen pens
3. A Bible
4. A Concordance
5. Coffee
6. Hi-liters (Yellow, Orange, Pink)
7. Time
8. NO OUTSIDE HELP.
9. Topical study
10. Word study
11. Expository Study
12. Periodic naps to rest the eyes, and to PONDER.
13. ABSOLUTELY NO COMPUTER WHATSOEVER. Not even for any kind of research. Just you and the LOGOS (Jesus).
So, after YOU have made YOUR conclusions, then and only then tell others what you have found, and compare notes with one another. If their views differ, it’s easy for you to revisit the topic, to see if their view is right, or wrong, or if you need to change your own views.
Just prayerfully considering things isn’t enough.
Ed
LikeLike
“If John Mac Arthur believes free will and God’s predestination for hell are parallel truths that are too hard for us to understand, why can’t he at least just drop the parallel line that he believes that some are actually destined to hell.”
Patti, Your entire comment is excellent and shows serious thinking. One of the problems Calvinism has these days is that it is getting a much needed public airing. If you look at history, people were not allowed to dissent from it without dire consequences and even after the Puritans died out, there were not as many public venues for challenges to the doctrine as there are now. Add to that the authoritarian bent of Calvinism and it has had a good run of controlling people for centuries.. The internet is changing all that. It has needed a public airing for centuries. The peasants can finally talk back.
The biggest problem for that doctrine is how to keep God from being the author of evil. They appeal to mystery. It is all they have. It cannot occur to them that a very Sovereign God can create beings who can say no to Him and still be Sovereign. In other words, they start with a faulty premise about God and man. If their version of total depravity is true then we must NEVER listen to them. Unless we are to believe they are given some special knowledge we cannot have. But then, that is Gnosticism.
LikeLike
“It involves the rich young ruler. How come Jesus looked at him and ‘loved’ him but refused him irresistible grace?”
He did? How do we know? Did he have only “one chance” at salvation? Who is to say that this man didn’t believe, even if a long time later? Does Jesus always give salvation immediately on the spot, and damn those who don’t react without delay?”
Steve, contrast the story with the I in TULIP. So you are saying he might have been chosen before the foundation of the world, before Adam even sinned, except LATER than when he was face to face with Jesus…..actually ASKING? Keep in mind, the doctrine says, the rich young ruler HAS NO CHOICE in the matter. He had to have been chosen long before he was born for salvation.
Folks, I simply do not know your Jesus. He is foreign to me. And a moral monster.
LikeLike
Gary, I have been around and worked in Muslim populations since I was a teen and my mom had a ministry to Muslim University students. I KNOW for a fact God uses dreams and visions. I know several Muslims who have dreamed of “Isa” and went on a quest for Him…very quietly of course.
The same happened with some of my family who were doing medical missions in Afghanistan right after it was opened. In “folk” Islam, Jesus is a prophet and some pray to him. They met a few who told them secretly that they had dreams He was more than a prophet. He was God. One man hid this from his wife for 3 years because he was afraid she would tell his family. Gives me chills to discuss it because our Savior is so very Awesome. I want to fall on my face in adoration of His mighty love.
LikeLike
I respect a man that has been in the Word of God for 45 years and devotes almost every waking hour to study of the scripture,( and has years of study in both Hebrew and Greek) far more than I would my own interpretation.
When I need a surgeon, I don’t rely on my own opinion”
Hannah, This really saddens me. You have simply traded one guru for another. Your analogy about surgery is misapplied. Listen to this:
26 I am writing these things to you about those who are trying to lead you astray. 27 As for you, the anointing you received from him remains in you, and you do not need anyone to teach you. But as his anointing teaches you about all things and as that anointing is real, not counterfeit—just as it has taught you, remain in him. 1 JOhn
There are more but God has promised YOU the same Holy Spirit John McArthur was promised. And without the baggage of seeking to amass followers and holding to an agenda building a mega church. YOU have the ability to know Christ intimately and not through a guru. That is what Christ wants for you and Him.
As to devoting all his time to study Greek and Hebrew I can understand how that would impress. It used to impress me, too! UNTIL I started reading and interacting with bible translators. One can know Greek and Hebrew but a better bet are specialized linguists instead of a theologian. The cultural context of a word during that time in history is the real meaning. How would the audience have understood it? That is most important. The bible is not a magic book nor the 4th person of the Trinity. God came as a man not a book. But the book has a wonderful place to help us but it is NOT the Holy Spirit.
LikeLike
Some things to consider when Romans 3 is trotted out:
1. It is quoting Psalms 51 which is man talking TO God. The Psalms are full of imprecatory prayers, too, about dashing babies heads against rocks. Should we take that literally? Some do!
2. Who is David talking about in Psalms 51?
3. Romans is a cumlative argument concerning the whole Jew/Gentile dichotomy. Never forget that. It is NOT about individual salvation/election. It is a corporate focus.
4. Does God refer to ANYONE in the OT as “righteous”? If He does then perhaps the point of Pslam 51 is misunderstood as it was used in Romans 3. Who is David talking about? His enemies.
5. If no one is righteous and no one ever understands then perhaps then perhaps we can be washed white as snow with hyssop, too. So which parts does one take literally and metaphorically? Who decides? Calvin decided to take it literally. But then, none of David’s enemies were righteous. So why is Paul quoting it to both Jews and Gentile believers in Romans?
Just a few thoughts that really helped me. Read the Gospels over and over for years. Know Jesus. Then Paul is easier to understand.
LikeLike
Lydia says, God has promised YOU the same Holy Spirit John McArthur was promised.” Except that MacArthur, being a cessationist, largely denies the work of Holy Spirit in the modern believer’s life. I have heard cessationists say the gifts of the Spirit came to an end once we had been given the full canon of Scripture.
I would contend that it is the other way around. I would say that the canon is closed, that we have been given no new Scripture for nearly 2000 years, because we have been given the Holy Spirit.
LikeLike
Gary,
I agree. The Holy Spirit’s job is to lead us, and guide us, and to teach us. Teach us what? New revelations? Nope. He teaches us the “hidden” spiritual treasures buried in the scriptures. The Word of God is spiritual, as well as carnal. The treasures are spiritual, using the carnal. Some of the problems that I see from those who wish to read the bible in the plain text are only carnal bound, therefore, they limit the Holy Spirit. I am not saying that they don’t have the Holy Spirit, but I will say that they dismiss the Holy Spirit.
Ed
LikeLike
“Except that MacArthur, being a cessationist, largely denies the work of Holy Spirit in the modern believer’s life. I have heard cessationists say the gifts of the Spirit came to an end once we had been given the full canon of Scripture.”
Yes and they set up a false dichotomy that if you are not a cessationist then you are some fringe wacko person speaking in tongues and seeing angels on pin heads. I get very sick of it all.
So what on earth did the early GENTILE believers do who had no NT scripture and not familiar with the OT?
I will say it is much harder to control folks who know the Holy Spirit is guiding and teaching them. Big name pastors don’t like the competition.
LikeLike
“Yes and they set up a false dichotomy that if you are not a cessationist then you are some fringe wacko person speaking in tongues and seeing angels on pin heads.”
Well, I’ve never met anybody who has seen angels on pin heads.
And, I wonder what the cessationists do with the billion Christians (my estimate) who speak in tongues. Consider them deceived? Think of them as frauds? Deem them crazy? Oh yeah, that’s whats meant by the term wacko.
If you can’t win on the merits, mock, and scoff, and deride, and belittle, and poke fun, and demean, and on and on. Well, two can play at that game. But I will resist the temptation to do so (but maybe mostly only because I need to get on to something else).
LikeLike
“Extremely great point that you bring up. I’ve heard much of the same that you state. There is a country near Spain called Basque. One of the two church’s that I attend hosts Basque students in the summer months. Basque is a country that doesn’t know the bible, nor Jesus.”
– What religions are in their country?
” In “folk” Islam, Jesus is a prophet…”
– Not just in “folk” Islam, but Jesus is a prophet in Islam itself. Ever read the Quran?
LikeLike
RI RI,
I am not well informed as to what religions are in that country. I am not involved in the student exchange programs. They are only hear for about a month, and I only saw them on Sunday’s…in the pews. But there was one Sunday that there were testimony.
Yes, I have read the Quran. I know that Jesus is known as ISA.
In regards to ISA, the first three letters in Isaiah is ISA. In Hebrew, ISA YAH (God is Salvation), or Jesus is God.
Ed
LikeLike
Julie Anne-
I think choosing to paste Romans 1 at the head of this thread from the other comments on the other thread will not suffice the entire conversation on the subject and actually make me appear quite ignorant of the entire discussion. It’s like a small sound bite.
There is really no point in arguing the matter.
There appears to be a disrespect and attack mode from others who are using the opportunity to pounce on others. I have seen it before.
I have a well rounded approach to the subject as I stated I have Dave Hunts DVD “What kind of love is this?” debating election as well as RC Sproul (who I know some here detest) and and also John Macarthur -by the way my apology for calling him JMac if that bothers some. I never did until others on another blog did and I guess I believed it was accepted title…
There is no need for personal attack.
And there ought to be a respect for others views.
I have stated more than twice that I am still not sure about the issue.
That’s why I think that because you chose to paste one small comment I made, others seeing this new thread may have been more emotional than necessary.
Someone said to me once “Only the Christians eat their young”.
I think time would be spent much better going out and making disciples than arguing with one another.
I have not read all the comments just some yesterday-enough to realize I have no place in this argument. I was actually responding to others on another thread.
This thread make sit appear as if I am starting an argument.
I was not.
It’s almost the same sensationalism that exists in the media.
I know that was not your intentions.
LikeLike
Hannah – – the only intentions I had in making this post was to alleviate the long loading time. If you’d like to suggest something else to put in the body of the post, please do. I don’t have time to reread the thread of comments, but I thought I had suggested that I’d like to add a comment of yours to balance it out.
LikeLike
One last comment.
Before anyone speaks for John Macarthurs position on the gifts, they ought to listen to his series on the subject.
I purchased them (I believe 8 CD’s) and the only 2 gifts he does not believe are for today are the gift of miracles and the sign gifts of the tongues as evidence at Pentecost.
Have you ever seen anyone being raised from the dead?
If anyone had that the gift of MIRACLES, I would believe they would be at the hospitals or at the morgues. People confuse this with the gift of HEALING. He goes into this on the sermons on the subject.
Miracles are acts by GOD.
The gift of tongues is another subject.
His sermon is a very good one on this subject.
Other than these 2 gifts, he believes in all the other gifts.
It is sad that people who probably did not thoroughly investigate and put the time into his teachings on the subject are misrepresenting him
And as Forest Gump says ” That’s all I have to say about that”.
LikeLike
Hannah,
This is Ed. I am sorry that you feel this way. I, too have listened to Dave Hunt’s YouTube video, “What Love is this”. By the way, he passed away not long ago.
Please do not think for a moment that I was picking on you personally. I am the kind of person that we can debate fiercely, blood popping veins, screaming, etc., and when it is all over and done with, still remain best friends. I’ve been like this since my Navy days when contending with the Personnel Office when I was a Pay Clerk. I can’t pay people without documents from the Personnel Office.
I have a sarcastic sense of humor. When it comes to Calvinism, I do come across as one who states, “How can anyone believe that stuff? When one listens to “sermons”, or video’s of a subject matter, it’s usually only one sided. There is no debate, no questions, no “huh?”, no “What the heck are you talking about?” It’s an authoritative sermon. Well, I am critical. But I would never attempt to join a debate on a subject that I have no knowledge about.
In a debate, challenge is necessary. Everyone needs to see both sides of the debate, and then others can make up their own mind. It’s healthy, not unhealthy.
Ed
LikeLike
Hannah,
Do please hang around. You have something to contribute. Ideally we would be able to counter, and even attack, opposing views, without making the other person feel attacked. I am sure it is an area where I could use a good deal of improvement. I am sorry you have felt personally attacked.
Inasmuch as you still have not made up you mind on these questions, have you read anything on-topic by N.T. Wright? Lydia somewhere indicates she prefers the linguists to the theologians. Inasmuch as theologians are want to use Scripture more as a proof texting tool than as a source of wherever-it-leads Truth, I agree. Wright is a theologian, but he is also a linguist and historian. I recommend him as a good resource for anybody who is interested in testing their own understanding against what others, of various points of view, have seen in Scripture.
LikeLike
Hannah,
Well, I will add one more comment then…the scripture states, “When that which is perfect come…”
Then those gifts will cease. But Love never ceases.
Ed
LikeLike
Hannah,
I can appreciate what you say concerning MacArthur’s views on the spiritual gifts. My understanding of his position was derived from a reading of the doctrinal statement posted at the Grace Community website, http://www.gracechurch.org/distinctives/. Under the heading of “The Church” the following is written: “The only gifts in operation today are those nonrevelatory equipping gifts given for edification (Romans 12:6-8).” That certainly seems to exclude, for example, the gift of prophecy, and probably even the gift of knowledge.
Even if MacArthur is only taking a position against the continuation of the gifts of miracles and tongues, there are (I’m sure) hundreds of millions of tongues-speaking Christians that put the lie to MacArthur’s doctrine. The fact that MacArthur has sponsored a conference and written a book bearing the title “Strange Fire” does nothing to change the reality on the ground. I dare say that if you were to honestly seek it with a humble and willing heart, you yourself might be granted the gift of Tongues. I say “might” because I recognize, contrary to the position of some, that God is sovereign in His granting of the gifts.
LikeLike
Gary W ” I dare say that if you were to honestly seek it with a humble and willing heart, you yourself might be granted the gift of Tongues”
Wow you are daring me. I won’t accept it!
The TRUE gift of tongue’s is not what is being practiced today.
Isn’t the interpretation of tongues a greater gift?
If so, how many people have you met that say they have the gift of the interpretation of tongues.
The topic is not up for argument with me. I won’t take the bait Gary.
Why do you care what I believe anyway?
You don’t know me, I don’t know you.
Isn’t it more important to ask the Lord to prepare us to share the gospel with an unbeliever that it is to argue doctrine with others?
Its a nice discussion till it turns ugly.
Ok I lied already (the Forest Gump quote)…so now I will have to go before the Lord in repentance 😉
Really, no more to say…Go to wwwdotgracetoyou.org and find the series on the gifts. Listen to ALL of them and then maybe we can have a discussion representing a man of God on the subject.
LikeLike
Hannah,
No, I wasn’t intending to dare you. Rather, I was inviting you, rather in the spirit of what seems to have become my life verse: “[B]ut test everything; hold fast what is good. (1 Thessalonians 5:21, ESV)
Why do I care what you believe. I really don’t care in the sense of wishing to impose anything on you. I do care, however, in the sense that I wish for all people everywhere to draw closer to the One Who is Truth by discerning what is and is not true.
Yes, I agree that it is more important to share the gospel than to debate doctrine. However, I also believe that evangelical Christianity has adopted a false doctrine with regard to just what the gospel is. I am not accusing you of anything. I do not know you. To my mind, however, the Good News is simply Jesus. Evangelicalism seems to me to have adopted the view that the Good News is what Jesus has done for us in terms of an abstract or imputed righteousness. I reject that definition of the Gospel.
I have not (yet) reviewed the series you mention at wwwdotgracetoyou.org. It is not that I am uninterested. I should at least take a look when time allows. However, it’s just that I have a fair amount of confidence as to what will and will not be presented there. I have been where MacArthur, Piper, Grudem, et al now are, I know the positions and arguments of the faith stream from which they come, I have argued their positions, I have a history of having mocked and derided the notion that the Gifts are for today, this is the very area in which I can be anxious whether I have blasphemed the Holy Spirit, I have a history of having rejected what these theologians would have me reject, and I have been humbled.
But rest assured. Though I readily receive what gifts my Lord would impart to me, I do not pursue them. Rather, I pursue the Giver of the gifts.
None of this is to criticize you. Rather, it is by way of encouraging you to continue your quest for all truth, which resides in the Truth. It is a good and honorable quest.
LikeLike
Hannah,
Would you be able to give me a direct link to the series you mention at wwwdotgracetoyou.org. When I go to wwwdotgracetoyou.org a home page is presented, and I’m not sure where to go from there.
LikeLike
“I think time would be spent much better going out and making disciples than arguing with one another.”
Hannah, I say this with love and concern in my heart: All I see you doing is trying to make disciples of John McArthur. And this is the problem in most of evangelicalism. It is a religion of gurus. People tend to go from guru to guru.
My problems with McArthur go way back. He taught some really ridiculous things about women, gender roles, etc. I can remember one series (years ago) when he was preaching 1 Corin 11 and said that it was unbiblical for men to have long hair. That is so ridiculous I could not believe it. For one thing, did he miss the part of the NT where Paul took a Nazarite vow? There are many more examples of him getting things very wrong which led me to believe his many years of bible study had a personal agenda attached to it. He is the guru and has amassed many followers. Not a healthy sign for those who mature in Christ..
Then reading Pyro for years where Phil Johnson is his editor and right in line with him was another wake up call. Did you know that it is a sin for you to answer any doctrinal question from a man? Does not matter if you are in a park or a grocery store. So your making “disciples” and sharing the Gospel is narrowed to other women unless you want to be a sinner in your guru’s eyes.
LikeLike
“In “folk” Islam, Jesus is a prophet…”
– Not just in “folk” Islam, but Jesus is a prophet in Islam itself. Ever read the Quran?”
RiRi, Sorry I missed this earlier. I should have explained myself better.
For one thing, many Muslims (I would say most) have not read the Quran. There are many reasons for this but an important one is that in some strains of Islam it being translated cannot be sacred so it can only be read in the original language. Ironically, Osama bin Laden complained about this very thing! Not enough Muslims read the Quran.
As to ISA as a prophet in the Quran. Yes, it is in there but not really highlighted for most Muslims. In some folk Islam tribes the medfical missions people I know found they were actually praying to ISA as a prophet in Afghanistan. It seemed to be more of a tradition as most of them had never read the Quran, either.
And yes I have read it in English. I read it in November 2001. They believe in a determinist god, too.
LikeLike
Chapmaned24, Wiki says over 50% of Basque’s population believes in God. Out of those, a great many are Roman Catholic. Catholicism was at one time followed by the majority of people in Basque. Before that they had their own indigeous religions that the Spanish Inquisition did all it could to subvert, destroy and smash out, employing nothing short of murder. Maybe those indigenous traditions are making a come back? That would be a positive move in the right direction away from the globalist agenda of One World Religion.
LikeLike
“What is the bottom line? All of their arguments have one purpose: To prove God doesn’t love everybody. To prove Christ didn’t die for everybody. To prove that God is not kind to everyone. And, in fact, that he delights in sending multitudes to hell. What love is this? God is love. Love is kind…” -Dave Hunt
That truly is the bottom line.
“The biggest problem for that doctrine is how to keep God from being the author of evil. They appeal to mystery. It is all they have.”
Lydia, “mystery” is all they have because the doctrine is illogical and contradicts and blasphemes the character of God.
How is it that God claims to be Love, tells us to love each other, and desires us to be conformed to the image of our Messiah, yet…according to some, we should consider ourselves perpetually confused, unable to discern the difference between good and evil, and can only guess as to what love actually is? We may have the mind of Christ, and the indwelling Holy Spirit, but not even these simple truths can be revealed to us?
I speak out about this again because lately I have been walking around in constant heartache because of this cruel and abusive, and yes, I am calling it abusive, teaching. And that makes me angry. I know where I stand on this issue, and yet, the pain will not go away. You know what? I should not have to remind myself over and over again that God loves me and is not Molech.
Anyway…wondering if anyone here has ever watched any of the “More Than Dreams” movies, which can be ordered at morethandreams dot org but watched for free on YouTube? They claim to be based on true stories of Muslims who have experienced these visions and dreams of Jesus. I saw some of them years ago and remember thinking they were incredible.
LikeLike
Hannah doesn’t seem like one who wishes to learn what is in the Bible, but rather what is in the sermons, and writings of that chili-mac guy. Now, for those who don’t know, I say chili-mac (Short for macaroni), all in fun, not in hatred. But Gary is right. Test all things. Hannah has made a conclusion that speaking in tongues is, how she say, “The TRUE gift of tongue’s is not what is being practiced today.”
How does she know? Has she ever encountered anyone who spoke in tongues? I have a few friends that do. She wants and interpreter to be MORE important.
Why?
There are different times in speaking in tongues. Sometimes, you are not with anyone around, as with a few friends of mine that do speak in tongues.
Here is what Paul states about that:
1 Cor 14:2
For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God: for no man understandeth him; howbeit in the spirit he speaketh mysteries.
It is you (spirit, not soul) speaking to God out loud.
The friends of mine that do speak in tongues state it this way:
“No one in their church can ever speak in tongues, BECAUSE they don’t believe in tongues, or gifts. They have no faith.”
My friends do not say that they aren’t Christians, they just state that there are faithless Christians in the Church.
I have had two friends of mine state EXACTLY THE SAME THING, separately, at different times to me, that when it first happened to them, they were scared. They were speaking in an unknown language that wasn’t jibberish, but flowed, freely, involuntarily, out of their mouth, for an extended period of time.
And then we have Hannah, telling them (indirectly), that they are full of S**T.
Well, okee dokey, then.
Ed
LikeLike
What confuses me is how and why that Hannah ignores:
“When that which is perfect comes…” from the Bible, and listens to Old JMac-Donald had a farm.
Ed
LikeLike
Ed, thanks for the comedy relief, lol!
LikeLike
Oasis,
Be sure to tip your waitresses, I will be here all week!!!
Only a few understand my comedic sarcasms. Some get offended because they think that my sarcasms are serious and hateful.
However, debates can be fun. I’ve heard many say, “Oh, we can’t talk about that subject, it might cause division”, referencing Romans 16:17.
Romans 16:17
Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them.
This makes it sound like that we have no choice but to believe what the preacher preaches, and not to ask questions contrary to the doctrine of the preacher, which differs from the doctrine that we understand from the Bible itself, because questions would cause division.
Oh, and how about those foolish Galatians. Do we think that the Apostle Paul was saying that in a lovey dovey way? Hell, no! And, who was the preacher in that church that was steering the Galatians to a foolish gospel? Someone was teaching them. Their was someone in charge, wasn’t there? There was a preacher, teacher, bishop, and elders, wasn’t there? Doesn’t the BUCK stop with those leaders?
But, you see, Paul had some guts to tell it like it is, and he was NOT afraid of the following:
Matthew 5:22 (Jesus states)
…whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.
1 Corinthians 15:36 (Paul States)
Thou fool…
Therefore, neither am I. Paul states to follow him as he follows Christ, speaking boldly against things that are contrary to the gospel of Christ.
Ed
LikeLike
Over on the current blog article, Under the Radar quotes some professor as having said or written “As a matter of history it is inescapable that Calvin played a central role in the arrest and prosecution of Servetus but it is simply not true that Calvin killed Servetus. The city council is responsible for Servetus’ death. Had Calvin objected to the death penalty it is unlikely that the city council would have listened or could have listened.”
Actually, John Calvin absolutely commandeered the Geneva Town Council. Not only did Calvin act as complaining witness, he acted as arresting chief of police and prosecuting attorney. During the trial, he sat with the council, advised the council, and effectively directed the council. He went so far as to persuade the council to apply law other than the law other than the law of Geneva. Even this non-applicable law did not call for the death penalty for heresy–only exile. John Calvin saw to it that Servetus was denied the assistance of an attorney. He did all this after failing in his attempts to have Servetus murdered at the hands of the Catholic Inquisitors.
Simply put, John Calvin used the Geneva Town Council to commit the judicial murder of Miguel Servetus. Thereafter, he continued to use his dominating influence to judicially murder his political opponents. Essentially, he became a mass murder.
One masterful resource that puts the lie to any notion of John Calvin’s innocence in the matter of Miguel Servetus, is Stefan Zweig’s book, The Right to Heresy, which can be found at http://www.gospeltruth.net/heresy/heresy_toc.htm.
Recognizing that we rally cannot know who did and did not die in the faith, the fruits of his life cause me to have serious doubts whether he was in the faith. Perhaps he repented prior to the end of his life, but history does not seem to record any such event.
LikeLike
Another good, though tedious, resource documenting John Calvin’s complicity in the judicial murder of Miguel Servetus is attorney Stanford Rives’ book, Did Calvin Murder Servetus? http://www.amazon.com/Calvin-Murder-Servetus-Stanford-Rives/dp/1439208689
LikeLike
The professor quoted by Under the Radar also says “The real argument here cannot reasonably be over Calvin’s influence over civil affairs or else the entire magisterial Reformation must be convicted (where’s the outrage over Bucer, Melanchthon, Luther, Zwingli, Bullinger et al?)” Well, for one thing, Huldrych Zwingli died in 1531, more than 2 decades before Miguel Servetus’ trial and judicial murder in 1553. Martin Luther had died in 1546. I have not looked up the dates of death of the other supposedly silent figures cited by Under the Radar’s professor, but the professor simply has no credibility as a historian. He is arguing a position without reference to the actual facts.
As to the professor’s statement that “the entire magisterial Reformation must be convicted . . . ,” yes, many, including myself, look at the fruit of the Reformation and conclude that it has little, if anything, to do with following Jesus, loving God, loving neighbors or loving one another.
LikeLike
A Mom – You seem to misunderstand what you read.
You have judged whether or not I examine my doctrine, accused me of not practicing what I preach, and stifling others in their healing. Snide comments about Geneva are just to be hurtful; you demonstrated previously that you are not studied in history.
Why do you think you can tell others what they believe and then judge them on it? How does that make you better than DP and that crowd?
I am not theonmist/reconstructionist or psudo-reformed, but I do know all about them. If the extent of the information I have provided makes you think I am, you are mistaken. There are counter-cult ministries, in all branches of the body.
LikeLike
For the record, the points made in the first paragraph 12/21/13 @ 7:04 AM are not well taken. I thought the Reformed (and transparently doctrinaire) professor was pointing out that Bucher, Malanchton, et al expressed no outrage at Calvin, thereby evidencing their alignment with Calvin. Rather, the professor seems to be making some point connected to the fact that current outrage is directed at only Calvin, though the Professor’s logic still isn’t particular clear to me. I continue to maintain that the professor is arguing his position as an advocate, and not as one who is following the facts wherever they may lead. But what else is new? One reason I find Stefan Zweig credible is that he isn’t committed one way or the other, for or against, Calvinist doctrine.
Still, I am living proof that there is hope for even the most doctrinaire. For most of my life I would easily have qualified as an avid Calvinist. For a part of this time I was even a hyper-Calvinist, at least as a matter of doctrine. Now that I have been able to more clearly see how Calvinist doctrine was no more than the foul effluent of one of the more pathological sociopaths to have graced the all-too-sordid annals of ecclesiastical history, I am a confirmed anti-Calvinist. But then, I am not just anti-Calvinist. I am anti-anything-other-than-only-Jesus.
LikeLike
“But then, I am not just anti-Calvinist. I am anti-anything-other-than-only-Jesus.”
Love that, Gary!
LikeLike
Well this has been fun. And I know you all would love me to debate or defend my beliefs. All believers should know their beliefs well enough to defend them, right? Sadly, I’m not smart enough to do that, I don’t have the time to do that, and it’s just not my idea of a good time. My kids are home for the holidays and funny enough, I’d rather spend my time baking, watching movies, going shopping, painting my nails, hearing about their lives and their friends, skating and dining with them.
Please feel free to question my Christianity and salvation since I don’t want to go over the same arguments, mud slinging and misrepresentations that always go on these boards.
Here’s a link to a debate I haven’t watched. I’m sure whatever they say can cover all the ground better than we can anyway. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dmeMOo4nINA
Merry Christmas and kind regards –
LikeLike
“Please feel free to question my Christianity and salvation since I don’t want to go over the same arguments, mud slinging and misrepresentations that always go on these boards.”
Under the Radar, Your comments began with “Dear”. It didn’t ring true to me (although others disagreeing with me have seemed sincere). Sorry to see your comments went downhill fast from there, as I suspected they would.
Sorry you think this is a mud slinging blog. You are incorrect. This blog & the commenters (most anyway) care about the spiritually abused. And we think they are important enough to spend our time on & with. There are families that have been torn apart: spouses, siblings, children & parents. It is heartbreaking.
As far as what you’d rather spend your time on… you engaged me, not the other way around, remember? JA’s December 16th post:
https://spiritualsoundingboard.com/2013/12/16/the-blogging-community-takes-on-the-destructive-subculture-of-the-homeschool-movement/#comments
Merry Christmas & best regards.
LikeLike
Under the Radar,
There have been one or two people commenting on Julie Anne’s blog who I encouraged to examine themselves whether they were in the faith. I do not recall having directed any such exhortation at you, but if I did, or if I seemed to do so, please accept my apology.
Still, I wonder why you feel your Christianity and salvation are being questioned. Maybe somebody said something I missed. One thing I’ve noticed, though, is that some Calvinist/Reformed seem to think their faith is being questioned when only their man made-doctrines are being challenged. I observe that you are wishing to move on, and I respect that. However, it perplexes me how it can be that one’s confidence in their salvation gets wrapped up in thinking that they are thinking what the self-proclaimed experts think.
If you’re still reading, and if you really don’t have time to acquire a ready-for-debate understanding of doctrine, let me suggest that that is O.K. In that case, however, perhaps you would find it more rewarding quit sharing doctrine (that you’re not equipped to defend) and simply share Jesus–and I don’t mean share information about Jesus. Share Him by loving those He loves. Love God, love neighbors, love your fellow Christians. Then, come back and instruct me how it is done. You see, I can maybe do a creditable job debating doctrine, but I wouldn’t be so able to tell you how to Love God, neighbors and my Christian brothers and sisters.
LikeLike