TULIP: Revised

[Lighthouse]

The Five Points of Calvinism

There are two main camps of theology within Christianity in America today: Arminianism and Calvinism. Calvinism is a system of biblical interpretation taught by John Calvin. Calvin lived in France in the 1500's at the time of Martin Luther who sparked the Reformation.
The system of Calvinism adheres to a very high view of scripture and seeks to derive its theological formulations based solely on God’s word. It focuses on God’s sovereignty, stating that God is able and willing by virtue of his omniscience, omnipresence, and omnipotence, to do whatever He desires with His creation. It also maintains that within the Bible are the following teachings: That God, by His sovereign grace predestines people into salvation; that Jesus died only for those predestined; that God regenerates the individual where he is then able and wants to choose God; and that it is impossible for those who are redeemed to lose their salvation.
Arminianism, on the other hand, maintains that God predestined, but not in an absolute sense. Rather, He looked into the future to see who would pick him and then He chose them. Jesus died for all peoples' sins who have ever lived and ever will live, not just the Christians. Each person is the one who decides if he wants to be saved or not. And finally, it is possible to lose your salvation (some arminians believe you cannot lose your salvation).
Basically, Calvinism is known by an acronym: T.U.L.I.P.

Total Depravity (also known as Total Inability and Original Sin)
I agree that we are incapable of being righteous of our own accord. But I do not agree that man is incapable of doing any good, apart from the Lord.

Unconditional Election
Is salvation unconditional? Yes. Are the saved elected? NO!

Limited Atonement (also known as Particular Atonement)
Is the gift of eternal life imparted unto those who never accept Christ? No. Does this mean that it was only intended for the "elect"? NO!

Irresistible Grace
Is God's grace irresistible, once you know it? Yes. Does this mean that God's grace is not offered to all? NO! God's grace is offered to all, but not all accept it. Those who do get to know it intimately, and find it irresistible. And an understading of exactly what grace is, and what it does also adds to is irresistibility.

Perseverance of the Saints (also known as Once Saved Always Saved)
Eternal security? Yes. For those who are Christ's. Does this mean that someone who once confessed Jesus, but now denies Him is still saved? No. It means they were never saved, for they never gave themselves to Christ.

These five categories do not comprise Calvinism in totality. They simply represent some of its main points.
And this thread is not about a revision of Calvinism in totality. It is only about TULIP.

cite (http://www.mslick.com/tulip.htm)

There is more to come. All information presented about TULIP, inthis thread, apart form the verse quotations, are from the above webpage.

[billwald]

THe theory of common grace handles the problem of evil people doing good.

[natewood3]

lighthouse,

I agree that we are incapable of being righteous of our own accord. But I do not agree that man is incapable of doing any good, apart from the Lord.

Rom 8:8 Those who are in the flesh cannot please God.

Heb 11:6 And without faith it is impossible to please him, for whoever would draw near to God must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who seek him.

Is salvation unconditional? Yes. Are the saved elected? NO!

Election is NOT salvation. Final salvation is conditional. Election, on the other hand, is unconditional. It is God who shows mercy.

How is "salvation unconditional"? If the "saved are not elected," then what does election mean, in your view?


Is the gift of eternal life imparted unto those who never accept Christ? No. Does this mean that it was only intended for the "elect"? NO!

I agree the gift is never imparted unto those who never accept. Why does ANYONE ever accept?

Who was the atonement intended for?

Joh 10:11 I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep.

Joh 17:2 since you have given him authority over all flesh, to give eternal life to all whom you have given him.

Is God's grace irresistible, once you know it? Yes. Does this mean that God's grace is not offered to all? NO! God's grace is offered to all, but not all accept it. Those who do get to know it intimately, and find it irresistible. And an understading of exactly what grace is, and what it does also adds to is irresistibility.

God's grace is irresistable in the sense that once God illumines the eyes of your heart to see Christ for who He really is and what He has really done, then it is impossible (in the sense that Christ is irresistably beautiful and all-satisfying) for us to reject Him. There is no yanking or forcing of ANYBODY'S wills. God's COMMON grace is offered to all.

"Intimately" implies you believe in an "effectual" grace in contrast from "common" grace. Is this what you mean?

Eternal security? Yes. For those who are Christ's. Does this mean that someone who once confessed Jesus, but now denies Him is still saved? No. It means they were never saved, for they never gave themselves to Christ.

I don't think this is really a "revision" of perseverance of the saints. This point has been the least studied for me, but I don't think you believe much differently than what Calvinism teaches.

[Lighthouse]

Originally posted by natewood3

lighthouse,



Rom 8:8 Those who are in the flesh cannot please God.


Heb 11:6 And without faith it is impossible to please him, for whoever would draw near to God must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who seek him.
I didn't say they were capable of pleasing God.


Election is NOT salvation. Final salvation is conditional. Election, on the other hand, is unconditional. It is God who shows mercy.
Salvation is not conditional upon anything other than faith.

How is "salvation unconditional"? If the "saved are not elected," then what does election mean, in your view?
I'll get to that later.



I agree the gift is never imparted unto those who never accept. Why does ANYONE ever accept?

Who was the atonement intended for?

Joh 10:11 I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep.

Joh 17:2 since you have given him authority over all flesh, to give eternal life to all whom you have given him.



God's grace is irresistable in the sense that once God illumines the eyes of your heart to see Christ for who He really is and what He has really done, then it is impossible (in the sense that Christ is irresistably beautiful and all-satisfying) for us to reject Him. There is no yanking or forcing of ANYBODY'S wills. God's COMMON grace is offered to all.

"Intimately" implies you believe in an "effectual" grace in contrast from "common" grace. Is this what you mean?



I don't think this is really a "revision" of perseverance of the saints. This point has been the least studied for me, but I don't think you believe much differently than what Calvinism teaches.
Okay. I am going to get to everything, I was just too sleepy to finish it in one night.

Also, not everything is going to be an actual revision. If it is something that is Biblical, then it will only be explained.

[natewood3]

lighthouse,

I didn't say they were capable of pleasing God.

If you meant that they are capable of doing some form of good, I would agree. It is still sin even though it is "good" however.

Salvation is not conditional upon anything other than faith.

I totally agree, which means it is conditional, not unconditional (maybe you meant conditional). I believe election is unconditional, but final salvation is not unconditional.

[billwald]

But one does not choose what one believes. Belief (faith) is a result of experience and observation.

[natewood3]

billwald,

What does that have to do with Calvinism?

[Lighthouse]

Sin is transgression of the law, and not everything the Godless do is a transgression of the law. And nothing we, as those living in Christ, do is a transgression of the law.

I will get to more of this tomorrow, as I have the day off.

[Swordsman]

Originally posted by lighthouse

Sin is transgression of the law, and not everything the Godless do is a transgression of the law. And nothing we, as those living in Christ, do is a transgression of the law.

I will get to more of this tomorrow, as I have the day off.

Yes, please Lighthouse. I would like to hear more about what you mean by transgression of the Law.

The Scriptures tell us you are either a slave to sin, or you're not.

[Hilston]

Lighthouse, are you an Open Theist?

Originally posted by lighthouse
Total Depravity (also known as Total Inability and Original Sin)

I agree that we are incapable of being righteous of our own accord. But I do not agree that man is incapable of doing any good, apart from the Lord.Where did you read or hear that Total Depravity means we are incapable of doing any good apart from the Lord?

Originally posted by lighthouse
And this thread is not about a revision of Calvinism in totality. It is only about TULIP.From your perspective, what more is there to Calvinism than TULIP?

[Lighthouse]

Okay, My dad hogged the computer, so I didn't get enough time to finish preparing. I apologize. I will finish what I have for my next post on the main subject, and post it asap.

Hilston-
Yes, I am an open theist. The site I got this information from is the one that said it taught that man is incapable of doing any good on his own. And It also said that TULIP was not the totality of Calvinism. And I would hope it was right, because if those five points are the only thing, then it's not a strong theology. There is more, isn't there?

[godrulz]

Originally posted by lighthouse

Okay, My dad hogged the computer, so I didn't get enough time to finish preparing. I apologize. I will finish what I have for my next post on the main subject, and post it asap.

Hilston-
Yes, I am an open theist. The site I got this information from is the one that said it taught that man is incapable of doing any good on his own. And It also said that TULIP was not the totality of Calvinism. And I would hope it was right, because if those five points are the only thing, then it's not a strong theology. There is more, isn't there?

Most scholars see Open Theism as a sub-category of Arminianism. If Lighthouse is an OT, then he is more Calvinistic on the spectrum of beliefs.

In either view, we can exalt the ROSE of Sharon rather than the TULIP of a system.

[Hilston]

Originally posted by lighthouse
Yes, I am an open theist. The site I got this information from is the one that said it taught that man is incapable of doing any good on his own.I read the site you linked above. It doesn't say that. If you can, please kindly copy/paste where you found the claim that Total Depravity "means we are incapable of doing any good apart from the Lord."

Originally posted by lighthouse
And It also said that TULIP was not the totality of Calvinism. And I would hope it was right, because if those five points are the only thing, then it's not a strong theology. There is more, isn't there?Sure there is, which is why I reject Calvinism as a system of theology. The principles of TULIP, rightly applied, are biblical. One problem, among many, is that Calvinism does not rightly apply them.

[Hilston]

Originally posted by godrulz
If Lighthouse is an OT, then he is more Calvinistic on the spectrum of beliefs.Who made you the authority on Open Theism, godrulz? Maybe he's a better Open Theist than you are. Why should I listen to you and not to lighthouse?

[Turbo]

Originally posted by Hilston

Who made you the authority on Open Theism, godrulz? Maybe he's a better Open Theist than you are. Why should I listen to you and not to lighthouse? I'll have to remember this post for the next time you make some claim that all the Calvinists on TOL aren't really Calvinists. ;)

[Hilston]

Originally posted by Turbo

I'll have to remember this post for the next time you make some claim that all the Calvinists on TOL aren't really Calvinists. ;) Man, did you bite HARD! Hook, line, sinker and pole.

Here's the difference, Turbo. I don't claim to be the authority on Calvinism, nor do I claim to be a Calvinist. But I can name them. I can quote them. godrulz just states it on his own authority.

Try to keep up.

[godrulz]

Originally posted by Hilston

Who made you the authority on Open Theism, godrulz? Maybe he's a better Open Theist than you are. Why should I listen to you and not to lighthouse?

I repeat, Open Theism, in principle, is more Arminian than Calvinistic. This is the consensus among the numerous Open Theism books I have read (as well as the anti-Open books which are almost always defending and assuming Calvinism is the only valid view...the same arguments they use against OT, are also used against Arminianism, which is held by many more evangelicals than OT). Lighthouse seems to support a modified TULIP (Calvinistic) system, which is the antithesis of Arminianism/Open Theism.

I have a student of theology, not an expert.

I am not familiar with all of his views. Lighthouse, what is your view on predestination, *foreknowlege, *omniscience, free will, etc.? These (not justification/sanctification) are the hallmarks of Open Theism.

[godrulz]

Originally posted by Hilston

Man, did you bite HARD! Hook, line, sinker and pole.

Here's the difference, Turbo. I don't claim to be the authority on Calvinism, nor do I claim to be a Calvinist. But I can name them. I can quote them. godrulz just states it on his own authority.

Try to keep up.

My comment is not based on my own authority, but research from many Open Theism and anti-Open Theism books I have read (not to mention the traditional Arminian upbringing I had in Bible College and the Calvinistic books I have appreciated...I used to subscribe to Sproul's magazine).

How many books relating to Open Theism do you have and have read/understood? I have studied this issue for 25 years? Yourself?

[Hilston]

Originally posted by godrulz

My comment is not based on my own authority, but research from many Open Theism and anti-Open Theism books I have read ...You're an exception, godrulz. I, too, have studied OV and anti-OV books.

Let me ask you a question: If I were to base my understanding of Open Theism on Lighthouse's inaccurate descriptions, and then critique the Open View according to those inaccurate descriptions, what would be your reaction?

Originally posted by godrulz
How many books relating to Open Theism do you have and have read/understood? I have studied this issue for 25 years? Yourself? I only became familiar with the Open View recently (circa 1995). I have read Boyd's books and John Sanders'. I also read a compilation of anti-OV essays by various reformed authors. I have read numerous articles and essays online. Are there any titles you would recommend that I've missed?

[godrulz]

It is commendable to look at all issues from both sides. It is imperative we understand and accurately represent other's views.

If we base our refutations on a misrepresentation of a viewpoint, we are guilty of the logical fallacy dealing with 'straw men' or 'caricatures'.

There is a spectrum of beliefs held by Calvinists (4 vs 5 pt., etc.), Arminians (Wesleyan, Pentecostal, etc.), and Open Theists (Pinnock, Boyd, etc.).

I am sure we do not fully understood each other's syncretistic views. We share opinions or ideas that may not be normative in a view.

I am surprised Lighthouse considers himself an Open Theist. I think he learns from sozo who may learn from Enyart. "The Plot" has some Open Theist views, but it is more a defense of Mid-Acts dispensationalism, which is not on the radar in Open Theism discussions. I do not think Enyart people have a broad grasp on Open Theism scholarship necessarily.

Open Theism is not a fully matured perspective. There are still issues to deal with. It seems to me it is less problematic than Calvinism and other views. It is often misrepresented and opposed by the Reformed camp that also opposes Arminianism. I have found some of the internet articles weak in their defenses and distort Open Theism. They merely assume Calvinism is true and oppose that which does not support it (circular reasoning/begging the question).

I like the Intervarsity Press books that have 4 views with counter-responses.

Some of these are readable or interesting:

Openness of God: A biblical challenge to the traditional understanding of God (Pinnock, Rice, Sanders, Hasker, Basinger), IVP

God of the Possible: A biblical introduction to the open view of God (Body), Baker

Is God to blame? Beyond pat answers to the problem of suffering (Boyd), IVP

Most Moved Mover: A theology of God's openness (Pinnock), Baker

The nature and character of God (Pratney), Bethany

The truth shall make you free (Gordon C. Olson), Bible research fellowship

Predestination and Free Will/divine sovereignty and human freedom (Feinberg, Geisler, Reichenbach, Pinnock), IVP

God's foreknowledge and man's free will (Rice), Bethany House

Divine Foreknowledge/4 views (Boyd, Hunt, Craig, Helm), IVP

Old copies of McCabe

God and Time/4 views (Helm, Padgett, Craig, Wolterstorff), IVP

God, Time, and Knowledge (Hasker), Cornell

The concept of God: an exploration of contemporary difficulties with the attributes of God (Nash), Zondervan

A treatise on time and space (Lucas), Methuen (too difficult)

Negative:

Lead us not into deception (Gomes) (Moral Government)

What does God know and when does he know it? (Erickson), Zondervan

etc. etc.

[Lighthouse]

Originally posted by Hilston

I read the site you linked above. It doesn't say that. If you can, please kindly copy/paste where you found the claim that Total Depravity "means we are incapable of doing any good apart from the Lord."
Okay. I misread. I must have heard someone say that Calvinist's believed that and that distracted me. I really just wanted to make it clear that it does not mean that man is incapable of doing good.

Sure there is, which is why I reject Calvinism as a system of theology. The principles of TULIP, rightly applied, are biblical. One problem, among many, is that Calvinism does not rightly apply them.
That is one reason I am doing this thread. I don't bwelieve that they are being rightly applied, and I also think that too many people don't actually understand TULIP, so I am present it, and laying out what the Bible says, so we can have the correct view.

[Lighthouse]

My Open Theism:
I believe that God can choose not to know everything. And I believe that He exercises that ability, especially in the area of the future. I don't believe that He looked into the future to know who would choose Him. I am not an Arminianist. I believe that His desire that we choose Him overrides His desire that none should perish. I beleive that He can, and does, change His mind. I also believe that He does not always have a "plan B."

[godrulz]

How can an omniscient God 'chose' to not know something that is knowable to other creatures? This is a Clete/Enyart/1way idea (correct me if I am wrong) and is not found in Open Theism literature ("The Plot" is limited in the Open View and more Mid-Acts).

Open Theists define omniscience as knowing everything that is knowable. Future free will contingencies are not knowable as a certainty because this is an inherent absurdity or logical contradiction. It is not that God could know them, but choses not to (whatever that means). It ranks with an omnipotent God making a square circle. It is not that He choses not to make square circles. It is that this is a logical contradiction/absurdity.

God knows possibilities as such, and certainties/actualities as such after the free choices are made. It is not so much the 'openness of God', but the openness of God's creation. Free will moral agents (God sovereignly and voluntarily made this type of non-deterministic creation) introduced logical limitations to the content of God's knowledge. This is not a limitation on omniscience, but affirms that God knows reality as it is= truth.

[Lighthouse]

1] Sozo has showed me truths in scripture. But he says he has not read The Plot.
2] I agree with Enyart on Mid Acts, because he proves it with scripture.
3] Neither of them are responsible for my OT views. I have always beleived the future to be open.
4] I never said that God would choose not to know things that er knowable to man. But the future is something an omnipotent, sovereign God can choose not to know, if He so desires.

[Swordsman]

And I used to believe that man came from apes. But did that make it the truth? :think:

[natewood3]

Lighthouse,

You said:

I believe that His desire that we choose Him overrides His desire that none should perish.

I believe God's desire to display and uphold His glory override His desire that none should perish.

Can you prove your statement? Does God uphold human freedom so much that it overrides His desire to save all people? Is there anywhere in Scripture that teaches that God highly respects and desires to uphold our free will?

I think you would agree there are many, many, many texts that could be given to show that God desires (I would argue above everything else) to display and uphold His glory and honor and name and reputation.

[godrulz]

Originally posted by lighthouse

1] Sozo has showed me truths in scripture. But he says he has not read The Plot.
2] I agree with Enyart on Mid Acts, because he proves it with scripture.
3] Neither of them are responsible for my OT views. I have always beleived the future to be open.
4] I never said that God would choose not to know things that er knowable to man. But the future is something an omnipotent, sovereign God can choose not to know, if He so desires.

How exactly can an omniscient being chose to not know something that is an object of knowledge in the universe? The future is not knowable as a certainty because it is not there to know yet. If there is past or present knowledge available, God cannot chose to not know it or He is not omnipresent/omniscient. Omnipotence is not relevant to this issue. If He chose to not know I ate an apple today, everytime I thought of eating that apple, God would become aware of that action and would know it (or I could hide sinful thoughts from Him). Can you as an act of your will chose to not know something? It would only become more reinforced if you tried to not know it. When the Bible implies that God forgets our sins, this actually means that He choses to not bring them up again. It is not that we can still dwell on them, but He is blinded to them now. This is incoherent. Everytime I think of my past sins, it would 'refresh' God's memory.

I doubt you have a Scriptural basis for this unique idea of omniscience, so this puts us in the realm of philosophy and logic. Is it coherent for Him to be able to chose to not know something that is knowable? Can you logically defend this definition without begging the question/circular reasoning? I have not thought it through much, but it does not come up in the literature I read on the issue (I think because it is intuitively a non-starter).

[Hilston]

Originally posted by lighthouse

Okay. I misread. I must have heard someone say that Calvinist's believed that and that distracted me. I really just wanted to make it clear that it does not mean that man is incapable of doing good.You what? On the contrary, lighthouse, you affirmed what it does NOT mean. The only thing that is clear is you don't know what it means.

[KNIGHT! Here is living proof of the very thing you and all your cronies should be ashamed of. Here, you've got a guy who is a student of your and your cohorts' teaching, and he has been misled about a fundamental theological doctrine that he will encounter time and again in his life. Of course, if he becomes just like you, he won't care, and he'll reproduce the same error in his own students, and you'll all continue to be a laughing stock to those of us who really care about understanding these things.]

Originally posted by lighthouse
That is one reason I am doing this thread. I don't bwelieve that they are being rightly applied, and I also think that too many people don't actually understand TULIP, so I am present it, and laying out what the Bible says, so we can have the correct view. lighthouse, you don't even know what Total Depravity means. How can you hope to correct it?

[godrulz]

Does total depravity mean total inability (negation of will, intellect, emotions)?

Is the moral and personal image of God in man erased or defaced?

[Lighthouse]

Originally posted by natewood3

Lighthouse,

I believe God's desire to display and uphold His glory override His desire that none should perish.

Can you prove your statement? Does God uphold human freedom so much that it overrides His desire to save all people? Is there anywhere in Scripture that teaches that God highly respects and desires to uphold our free will?

I think you would agree there are many, many, many texts that could be given to show that God desires (I would argue above everything else) to display and uphold His glory and honor and name and reputation.
I agree with you. God's glory overrides His desire that none perish. With free will, if God has given us free will, then it would follow that His desire that we have the ability to choose would override His desire that none should perish. Those who believe they can defy God will learn that He will not be defied, and they will suffer His wrath because he is glorious!

[Lighthouse]

Originally posted by Hilston

You what? On the contrary, lighthouse, you affirmed what it does NOT mean. The only thing that is clear is you don't know what it means.
And that was my intention. People think it means something it does not. And I stated that it does not mean what some think it means.

[KNIGHT! Here is living proof of the very thing you and all your cronies should be ashamed of. Here, you've got a guy who is a student of your and your cohorts' teaching, and he has been misled about a fundamental theological doctrine that he will encounter time and again in his life. Of course, if he becomes just like you, he won't care, and he'll reproduce the same error in his own students, and you'll all continue to be a laughing stock to those of us who really care about understanding these things.]
I am a student of the word of God. I am His, and I desire to know Him. That's part of the reason I am doing this. I am affirming what the word does say, and learning along the way.

lighthouse, you don't even know what Total Depravity means. How can you hope to correct it?
I do not want to correct Total Depravity. I want to correct people's idea of it. And I hope to learn it as well myself.

[natewood3]

Lighthouse,

Do you think God's desire for His glory is paramount in the universe?

The Arminian/OV answer is generally that even though God desires all people to be saved, He desires more so to uphold and allow human "free will." Do you agree?

Or: Does God not save all because God loves His own glory more than He desires to save all people?

I know you agree that God's desire for His glory overrides His desire that none should perish, but is this His ultimate end for all things? Non-Calvinists will argue for God's desire to uphold free will, but they never give texts to show that God indeed respects and desires to uphold free will more than anything else.

[godrulz]

We are all students, not scholars. Let us be teachable.

[Lighthouse]

Total Depravity:
Sin has affected all parts of man. The heart, emotions, will, mind, and body are all affected by sin. We are completely sinful. We are not as sinful as we could be, but we are completely affected by sin.
So far, so good.

The doctrine of Total Depravity is derived from scriptures that reveal human character: Man’s heart is evil (Mark 7:21-23) �For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders, Thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness: All these evil things come from within and defile the man.�* and sick (Jer. 17:9). “The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?�* Man is a slave of sin (Rom. 6:20). “For when ye were the servants of sin, ye were free from righteousness.� He does not seek for God (Rom. 3:10-12). “As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:�* He cannot understand spiritual things (1 Cor. 2:14). “But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him; neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.�* He is at enmity with God (Eph. 2:15). “Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace;�* And, is by nature a child of wrath (Eph. 2:3). “Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others.�* The Calvinist asks the question, "In light of the scriptures that declare man’s true nature as being utterly lost and incapable, how is it possible for anyone to choose or desire God?" The answer is, "He cannot. Therefore God must predestine."
:rolleyes:

Calvinism also maintains that because of our fallen nature we are born again not by our own will but God’s will (John 1:12-13) �But as many as received him, to them gave he the power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.�* ; God grants that we believe (Phil. 1:29) “For unto you it is given in the behalf of Christ, not only to believe on him, but also to suffer for his sake;� ; faith is the work of God (John 6:28-29) “Then they said unto him, What shall we do, that we might work the works of God? Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.� ; God appoints people to believe (Acts 13:48) “And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord: and as many were ordained to eternal life believed.� ; and God predestines (Eph. 1:1-11; Rom. 8:29; 9:9-23). “Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, to the saints which are at Ephesus, and to the faithful in Christ Jesus: Grace be to you , and peace, from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ. Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ: According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love: Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will, To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved. In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace; Wherein he hath abounded toward us in all wisdom and prudence; Having made known unto us the mystery of his will, according to his good pleasure which he hath purposed in himself: That in the dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in him: In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will:�*

“For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.�*

“For this is the word of promise, at this time will I come, and Sarah shall have a son. And not only this; but when Rebecca also had conceived by one, even by our father Isaac; (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth;) It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger. As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated. What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid. For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that showeth mercy. For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might show my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth. Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth. Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will? Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus? Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishounour? What if God, willing to show his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory..,�*

I can see nothing wrong with the doctrine of man being incapable of being righteous. And only God can make man righteous. But I still believe that we can choose to respond rightly to God, when He offers grace to us. And people can choose to defy Him, as well. And they will not be righteous, because they presume they can defy the living God. what I have a problem with is people's interpretations of some of these things. When someone chooses to respond rightly to God, He prepares them unto His glory. And those who assume they can do it on their own are prepared for wrath. And they are prepared in advance, because the glory and wrath are yet to come.

[Hilston]

Originally posted by lighthouse

And that was my intention. People think it means something it does not.When you wrote in your first post that you don't think Total Depravity "means we are incapable of doing any good apart from the Lord", who were you thinking of?

Originally posted by lighthouse
I do not want to correct Total Depravity. I want to correct people's idea of it. And I hope to learn it as well myself. What people?

[Lighthouse]

I don't remember where I heard it. I think it was something somebody said on here, though. Seeing as how I don't know any Calvinists apart from here.
As for the people, whoever thinks that it means that. Perseverance of the saints is one that other people's interpretations will be an issue on. I know, I used to be one of them. And godrulz is definitely one of them. Sadly though, he may still not get it after I get to that.

Anyway, I wanted to address something I forgot in my last post. Total Deparvity does state, at least on this site [and from what I understand of Calvinism as a whole] that we are incapable, or unable [which is why it's also known as Total Inability] to want God on our own. I disagree. I do believe that God reaches out to us, but there are plenty of people who are not so hardened that God has to reach out to them in an attempt to soften their hearts. All they need is to hear His word. Of course, once you hear it and understand it's irresistible. But that's for another post.

[godrulz]

Godrulz (go to the source) believes in conditional eternal security (biblical), not unconditional eternal security (once saved, always saved).

We are secure if we are in Christ. If we become apostate, we are not in Christ, and thus no longer secure.

I disagree with lighthouse who wrongly assumes that everyone who leaves the faith must not have been a true believer. This is true of many, but not all people who walk away from their committment.

[natewood3]

Lighthouse,

You say:

I can see nothing wrong with the doctrine of man being incapable of being righteous. And only God can make man righteous. But I still believe that we can choose to respond rightly to God, when He offers grace to us. And people can choose to defy Him, as well. And they will not be righteous, because they presume they can defy the living God. what I have a problem with is people's interpretations of some of these things. When someone chooses to respond rightly to God, He prepares them unto His glory. And those who assume they can do it on their own are prepared for wrath. And they are prepared in advance, because the glory and wrath are yet to come.

Yet you say:

I do believe that God reaches out to us, but there are plenty of people who are not so hardened that God has to reach out to them in an attempt to soften their hearts. All they need is to hear His word. Of course, once you hear it and understand it's irresistible. But that's for another post.

Now, you quoted a number of verses to show the doctrine of total depravity. You then proceed to almost deny the verses by saying we can respond (when God offers grace), but you also said we could deny a response to Him. You then said when we do hear it, it is irresistable.

Is God's grace irresistable in the sense that when we see Christ, we will joyfully and willfully respond? Or do you think that even though we see it, we can still reject it?

[godrulz]

Irresistible grace fits logically with TULIP. I think lighthouse is being inconsistent. It is at least incompatible with free moral agency/responsibility/accountability.

[Lighthouse]

I am no longer responsible for my life, godrulz. Christ is! I do agree with some tenets of TULIP. You already know I believe in eternal security. a.k.a. Perseverance of the Saints, the P in TULIP. And I am not accountable to anyone, I am accountable in Christ.

natewood3-
I do agree with total depravity in that we are incapable of being righteous of ourselves. But do not agree that we are incapable of choosing Christ. I misspoke in my first post that you quoted, because I had forgotten about that facet of the idea. That is why I posted the new post, so I could explain my stance on that issue. I think that there are those who can reject Christ, even after hearing His word, but when you understand it it is irresistible. Right now my mom doesn't consider herself a Christian, because she doens't think she is good enough. But when I take the time to explain to her what the word actually says, now that I know what to say, then I expect her to open herself to God.

[godrulz]

Christ certainly is responsible for our lives as a responsible Creator and Redeemer (Jude 24, 25). There are other verses that say we are responsible for yielding, obeying, trusting, serving, preaching, studying, etc. We have to live our normal life and our spiritual life. We pray and witness. God does not pull our strings to force us to do these things. It is a love relationship freely entered into and maintained. We trust in the arm of God, not the arm of the flesh. It is simplistic and unscriptural to think we are passive after becoming believers. We put to death the deeds of the flesh in the power of the Spirit. We do not sin so grace may abound. If we lapse, He disciplines us for our good.

We give account to God (hence rewards or loss at the Bema Seat). We are stewards, not owners. What we do with our time, talent, and treasures is our responsibility.

It is not difficult to live the Christian life, it is impossible (in our own strength).

Have you ever felt the Spirit's prompt to give, witness, pray, etc. , but did not? God does not control everything in our lives. This would be creating dysfunctional, immature children. Why would he let unbelievers be free to become bound in their sin, but take away genuine freedom post-conversion to the point we cannot think a wrong thought, have a wrong motive, do a wrong deed?

[Lighthouse]

Originally posted by godrulz

Have you ever felt the Spirit's prompt to give, witness, pray, etc. , but did not? God does not control everything in our lives. This would be creating dysfunctional, immature children. Why would he let unbelievers be free to become bound in their sin, but take away genuine freedom post-conversion to the point we cannot think a wrong thought, have a wrong motive, do a wrong deed?
In answer to your first question, yes. But I must confront your assertion that God allows us to become bound in sin, once we are free. We are the ones who bind ourselves to sin/flesh by binding ourselves to the law, when we have been made free from the law. You had it right when you said we were incapable of doing it on our own. Only God can sanctify us and make us righteous. we are not passive, we actively trust in Him for our sanctification.

[godrulz]

So, do we merely say a one time prayer "God, I trust you for my sanctification cf. justification" or do we daily yield and obey? i.e. some teach a doctrine of entire sanctification that is a one time crucifixion of the flesh that makes it impossible to sin; others see it as a process that involves our obedience with potential for isolated lapses.

[Lighthouse]

It's not even a "prayer" as most people think of prayer. But prayer is communication with God, and that includes listening. It is actually communion, which is deeper than conversation. What it is is faith. Faith being trust and love. Then we are sanctified/justified in Christ. It is finished. But when we don't realize that we bind ourselves to the law. And we feel bad when we fail. But when the realization of the freedom that comes from Christ is full with in our minds and hearts, then we don't regret the things we have been cleansed of. And God's will becomes our will and we live rightly by the power of the Spirit, and not by our own power. And I have found myself acting against the Spirit less since I realized the freedom I have. And what exactly that means.

[HopeofGlory]

Originally posted by lighthouse


I think that there are those who can reject Christ, even after hearing His word, but when you understand it it is irresistible. Right now my mom doesn't consider herself a Christian, because she doens't think she is good enough. But when I take the time to explain to her what the word actually says, now that I know what to say, then I expect her to open herself to God.

The word read or spoken without the Spirit has no power, merely reading or hearing it and not believing is not rejection. When the Spirit gives us the understanding only then is rejection possible but truly understanding is irresistable.

God understands your needs. Do not feel that you are alone responsible for your mom's understanding. He could be waiting for you to let go of the steering wheel. I have been there and you have my prayers.

[godrulz]

Originally posted by lighthouse

It's not even a "prayer" as most people think of prayer. But prayer is communication with God, and that includes listening. It is actually communion, which is deeper than conversation. What it is is faith. Faith being trust and love. Then we are sanctified/justified in Christ. It is finished. But when we don't realize that we bind ourselves to the law. And we feel bad when we fail. But when the realization of the freedom that comes from Christ is full with in our minds and hearts, then we don't regret the things we have been cleansed of. And God's will becomes our will and we live rightly by the power of the Spirit, and not by our own power. And I have found myself acting against the Spirit less since I realized the freedom I have. And what exactly that means.

The verb tenses for love, obey, trust, faith, etc. are often present tenses which imply a continuing action in Greek. They are not a one time action in the past (aorist vs imperfect or present tenses). I think it is more than a mental assent to our position in Christ, but an active living out the Christian life moment by moment, choice by choice.

[Lighthouse]

Originally posted by natewood3

Lighthouse,

Do you think God's desire for His glory is paramount in the universe?
Yes.

The Arminian/OV answer is generally that even though God desires all people to be saved, He desires more so to uphold and allow human "free will." Do you agree?
I am not an Arminianist. But I do agree with that assertion.

Or: Does God not save all because God loves His own glory more than He desires to save all people?
I agree with this as well. The destruction of the wicked, those who reject God, is to God's glory. But so is the salvation of those who trust in Him.

I know you agree that God's desire for His glory overrides His desire that none should perish, but is this His ultimate end for all things?
His glory? Yes. His glory is the chief end of all things.

Non-Calvinists will argue for God's desire to uphold free will, but they never give texts to show that God indeed respects and desires to uphold free will more than anything else.
He is not willing that nay perish. So if some perish, that shows that He is upholding free will. But I do not believe that He upholds free will more than anything else. His glory is paramount.

P.S.
I'm off work Tuesday and Wednesday, so I should be able to work on more of my presentation and post it.

[Lighthouse]

Originally posted by godrulz

Godrulz (go to the source) believes in conditional eternal security (biblical), not unconditional eternal security (once saved, always saved).

We are secure if we are in Christ. If we become apostate, we are not in Christ, and thus no longer secure.

I disagree with lighthouse who wrongly assumes that everyone who leaves the faith must not have been a true believer. This is true of many, but not all people who walk away from their committment.
give your reason for believing that nayone who had an actual relationship with Christ, would ever deny He exists. Also, define what you mean by walking away. We may not mean the same thing.

[Lighthouse]

Originally posted by HopeofGlory

The word read or spoken without the Spirit has no power,
Definitely. But, since it is God's word, the Spirit is always in it.

merely reading or hearing it and not believing is not rejection.
I agree, to a point. Having a wall between you and the Spirit keeps you from receiving the word, because you don't receive the Spirit.

When the Spirit gives us the understanding only then is rejection possible but truly understanding is irresistable.
I agree, I guess. It seems to me that you are saying unbelief is not rejection of God. So, what does it take for it to finally be rejection of God? Do those who do not believe at the hearing or reading of the word finally actually reject God when they come face to face with Him for the judgment?

God understands your needs. Do not feel that you are alone responsible for your mom's understanding. He could be waiting for you to let go of the steering wheel. I have been there and you have my prayers.
I agree. I do not think I am solely responsible. But, being her son, and the only son she has that completley trusts in God, I do have a responsibility to try and lead her to the truth that she is not "too wicked" for God to save.

[Lighthouse]

Originally posted by godrulz

The verb tenses for love, obey, trust, faith, etc. are often present tenses which imply a continuing action in Greek. They are not a one time action in the past (aorist vs imperfect or present tenses). I think it is more than a mental assent to our position in Christ, but an active living out the Christian life moment by moment, choice by choice.
My faith is continuing. But it is not I who continues it. It is Christ. He keeps it alive.

[godrulz]

Originally posted by lighthouse

give your reason for believing that nayone who had an actual relationship with Christ, would ever deny He exists. Also, define what you mean by walking away. We may not mean the same thing.

If salvation is a love relationship and reconciliation; if we are responsible for receiving or rejecting Christ; if we have any sense of being in the image of God with free moral agency...then it is self-evident that salvation must be freely entered into and maintained. There are conditional aspects of salvation and warnings about the potential of apostasy. There are biblical and anecdotal examples of many who have known and loved God who have walked away. There is no biblical or logical reason to assume that everyone who ends up apart from Christ could not have possible knew Him (e.g. Judas; Charles Templeton; my brother-in-law, etc.).

As stupid and selfish as it would be for someone who knew Christ (as a child for example....I loved God at age 12, but lived for self until 18....I had a head knowledge of Christ during those rebellious years...I did not have a heart surrender and would consider myself lost if I would have died at age 17. Unless determinism is true and I have a roboton, there is nothing necessitating my surrender at 18. I did repent and trust again, but many others never return to their childhood trust).

Walking away to the point of no return is not a mere 'backsliding' followed by renewed commitment. It involves a deliberate renunciation against great light of the truth and the person and work of Christ to the end of life. It is a return to trusting Self, a cult, atheism, Satanism (there are former pastors or evangelical children who are now given over to evil and darkness), etc. (cf. Hebrews 6 one cannot know Christ and then return to Judaism and be saved). Rev. 2;3 We must persevere and overcome to the end. Satan can sift people if they turn from God. If we can turn to God, we can turn from God. It is an illogical assumption to conclude it is impossible to renounce that which one previously embraced. We do it in other areas of life, so the only way for your conclusion to be true is if God is coercive rather than loving. This leads to TULIP, which is not defensible in my mind in light of all of Scripture.

[godrulz]

Originally posted by lighthouse

My faith is continuing. But it is not I who continues it. It is Christ. He keeps it alive.

This is half true. Many verses exhort us to keep loving, trusting, obeying, abiding, etc. Faith involves knowledge (belief/intellect), will (volitional), trust. These are not passive things done to us by an outside force, but are active things within our responsible control. Jn. 3 differentiates those who believe and those who persist in unbelief. He commands people to repent and obey. God would not command this if we have no ability to respond. Christ persuades, empowers, woos, draws, encourages, convicts, etc., but we have to yield and use our God-given faculties to believe, trust, and love. Love is volitional. We are exhorted to love God and others with our whole being. Faith is an outflow of our love. We put God first, rather than self. Adam chose disobedience over faith and love in God. These are volitional issues. God wants us to freely love Him in relationship. We cannot reduce salvation and sanctification to a mere legal transaction or unilateral process from God alone.

He does not coercively keep our faith alive. There is a possibility we can grieve, quench, or resist the Spirit (explicit in verses in Scripture). To assume Christ keeps our faith alive despite our potential return to apathy or apostasy is not defensible. If we continue to seek God and surrender to Him, He will keep us and our faith alive. If we tell Him to buzz off, He will not force us to walk in the light. There is a difference between WILL NOT reject Christ (the norm for true believers, though there are exceptions) and CANNOT reject Christ (the possibility is explicit in Scripture and church history).

[natewood3]

godrulz,

I am going to jump in and ask a few questions...

He does not coercively keep our faith alive.

I know you know that Calvinists do not believe that God coerces us, but would you say that God DOES keep our faith alive? Why did you wake up a believer this morning? Are you somewhat smarter and more intelligent than somebody who woke up and did not believe this morning?

There is a possibility we can grieve, quench, or resist the Spirit (explicit in verses in Scripture).

I agree, but does that mean totally walking away from Christ?

To assume Christ keeps our faith alive despite our potential return to apathy or apostasy is not defensible.

Not defensible? Are you implying YOU keep your faith alive? YOU keep yourself being a Christian?

Phi 2:13 for it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure.

2Th 1:11 To this end we always pray for you, that our God may make you worthy of his calling and may fulfill every resolve for good and every work of faith by his power,
2Th 1:12 so that the name of our Lord Jesus may be glorified in you, and you in him, according to the grace of our God and the Lord Jesus Christ.

1Th 3:11 Now may our God and Father himself, and our Lord Jesus, direct our way to you,
1Th 3:12 and may the Lord make you increase and abound in love for one another and for all, as we do for you,
1Th 3:13 so that he may establish your hearts blameless in holiness before our God and Father, at the coming of our Lord Jesus with all his saints.

1Pe 4:11 whoever speaks, as one who speaks oracles of God; whoever serves, as one who serves by the strength that God supplies--in order that in everything God may be glorified through Jesus Christ. To him belong glory and dominion forever and ever. Amen.

Heb 13:20 Now may the God of peace who brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus, the great shepherd of the sheep, by the blood of the eternal covenant,
Heb 13:21 equip you with everything good that you may do his will, working in us that which is pleasing in his sight, through Jesus Christ, to whom be glory forever and ever. Amen.


Jud 1:24 Now to him who is able to keep you from stumbling and to present you blameless before the presence of his glory with great joy,
Jud 1:25 to the only God, our Savior, through Jesus Christ our Lord, be glory, majesty, dominion, and authority, before all time and now and forever. Amen.

God deserves all the glory because it is HIM, not us, who keeps us. We are commanded to keep ourselves in places; however, God's work is decisive, and our work is dependent. If we begin to think that WE do what is being done to us, we blaspheme and rob God of His glory...

[HopeofGlory]

godrulz,

It is very clear that your understanding of security comes from head knoweledge and a belief that you must maintain your salvation not a faithful relationship with Christ.

As Adam's nature could not deny Eve because she was part of his body thus the fall neither can Christ's nature deny us if we are true members of His body.

Gen 2:23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.
Gen 2:24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.


Eph 5:30 For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones.
Eph 5:31 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh.
Eph 5:32 This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church.

2Ti 2:13 If we believe not, yet he abideth faithful: he cannot deny himself.

If anyman falls it is because he was never a member of Christ's Body.

[godrulz]

We can take proof texts for it being of God or emphasize the ones saying we have a responsibility (both groups of verses are in the Bible cf. God's sovereignty and human free will). The truth is it is not either God or us (do not misrepresent me and say I think it is up to us alone apart from God). It is God AND US (not either/or but both/and). Relationship/reconcilitation is not unilateral and passive. It involves two parties and is active.

Certainly, God's grace and enablement are essential. It is not difficult to live the Christian life, it is impossible apart from Him.

Quenching and grieving the Spirit were warnings for believers. There are degrees of resisting the Spirit. The 'unpardonable sin' implies it is possible to finally reject the work of the Spirit and die without hope or remedy (due to rejection/unbelief of the one who brings us to Christ). If you start resisting the Spirit on the continuum, it could theoretically lead to a complete renunciation of one's former faith. If persisted in until death without repentance and restoration, the promises for believers no longer apply. By definition, one is now an unbeliever and new consequences apply.


IF....THEN....

[HopeofGlory]

lighthouse,

You said:
I agree, I guess. It seems to me that you are saying unbelief is not rejection of God. So, what does it take for it to finally be rejection of God? Do those who do not believe at the hearing or reading of the word finally actually reject God when they come face to face with Him for the judgment?

My reply:
Yes, unbelief is not rejection.

Paul was in unbelief until Christ manifested Himself to him and Paul said that his experience was a pattern to those that would believe.

Don't push your mom to hard. She knows you love her and I am sure she listens to what you say and Christ in you will manifest Himself to
her. Turning from self to God can be very painful experience.

[Lighthouse]

godrulz-
You never answered my question. Can someone who was in an intimate relationship with Christ ever deny Christ's existence? Can it be done, even if the relationship is not intimate? Can I deny that my best friend ever existed? No, I can not. I have known him since we were eight. Can I deny that you exist? No. Even though I have never seen you, and we do not have a relationship beyond debate and discussion here at TOL, I know you exist, and I have a type of relationship with you. I can not deny your existence. Do you get what I am saying?

[godrulz]

Charles Templeton and Zakath once believed in the existence of God and preached the Gospel. They both ended up denying His existence. Part of being human is the ability to change one's mind, even against evidence. I do not know whether Zak was a genuine believer. I just talked to a preacher who debated Templeton. He believed that he was a genuine believer when he was preaching the Gospel.

I cannot deny the existence of a human I have met. I could question the existence of a character in history or writing if I never met them. Though God is more real to us than any person, some had surrendered to Christ, but now deny the existence of the invisible God. Why is this theoretically impossible given the nature of belief and will? I still think you are using circular reasoning and begging the question. You assume what you are trying to prove (it is impossible for an apostate to have never been a believer...why is this inherently necessary...it is true for some, but not all cases).

[Lighthouse]

If you don't understand how someone who has an actual relationship with the Lord would never walk away, then I fear for you. In fact, I am afraid that you may not have an actual relationship with Him, because you don't understand the nature of the relationship.

[godrulz]

Relationship principles are basic. Our relationship with God is not totally dissimilar to our other relationships. e.g. involves love, communication, trust, fellowship, intimacy, knowledge, etc.

Thankfully, the criteria of intimacy with God and relationship/salvation is not based on your unique articulations. It is based on the Word of God and His character, not our limited understandings of it.

[Lighthouse]

HopeofGlory-
Thank you. Also, I would like to point out that the word of God always has His power [the power of the Spirit] in it.

godrulz-
You are lost. If one who personally knows Christ, is in a personal, intimate relationship with Christ, could ever actually believe that He did not exist, then two plus two would not equal four.

[Lighthouse]

Unconditional Election:
God does not base His election on anything He sees in the individual. He chooses the elect according to the kind intention of His will (Eph. 1:4-8; Rom. 9:11)�According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love: Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will, To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved. In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace; Wherein he hath abounded toward us in all wisdom and prudence;�

“(For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth; )�without any consideration of merit within the individual. Nor does God look into the future to see who would pick Him. Also, as some are elected into salvation, others are not (Rom. 9:15, 21).�For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and i will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.�

“Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?�

What I really have a problem with here, is the idea that we don't have a choice. Why even waste my time on a God like that? If He wants me, He'll come and get me. That's not God. He chooses who to have compassion and mercy upon, by the way we respond to His love. Grace is only irresistible, when you let it in. That doesn't mean that His grace isn't for everyone. His power over us to make us for honor, or dishonor is based on our response. If we don't respond, then we will be molded for dishonor. The word tells us it is His will that none should perish, but that all should come to repentance. Why would His will differ from that which His word tells us is His will? His grace is unconditional. It is there for everyone. But election for salvation is falsely based on verses that are speaking of another kind of election and predestination. The election in the case of Jacob and Esau was about Jacob being elected by God to be the father of a nation, by getting the birthright from his older brother, Esau. That is all.

[godrulz]

Originally posted by lighthouse

HopeofGlory-
Thank you. Also, I would like to point out that the word of God always has His power [the power of the Spirit] in it.

godrulz-
You are lost. If one who personally knows Christ, is in a personal, intimate relationship with Christ, could ever actually believe that He did not exist, then two plus two would not equal four.

What do you mean that I am lost? Am I confused, or am I going to hell?

Many children grew up knowing and loving God. Many of these are now Mormons, Jews, Wiccan, Satanists, atheists, etc. now. Satan has deceived and sifted them by their own rebellion.

Charles Templeton preached the Gospel as a contemporary of Billy Graham (maybe even more successfully). Later in life, he renounced his faith and hardened his heart to the point of being an agnostic or atheist to his death.

If an atheist can become a theist and Christian (C.S. Lewis), it is possible to decide (due to tragedy or intellectual issues brought up at humanistic universities) to renounce Christ and Christianity and move in the direction of unbelief.

Your unidirectional view (once you believe, you cannot apostasize) is simplisitic and is anecdotally and Scripturally indefensible (Heb. 6, etc.).

I also reject unconditional election and see election as a corporate vs individual election.

You are discerning problems with TULIP, but probably do not have the experience to totally formulate an accurate counter-theology. You seem to try to hang on to some aspects of TULIP by modifying it. This may or may not work (your views also may be problematic at points). I commend you for trying to work through the issues in an attempt to be biblical.

[Lighthouse]

By lost, I mostly meant confused. But I fear that you do not understand a relationship wiht Christ. Just because it is possible to move from unbelief to faith, does not mean the opposite is true. It is possible to move from belief to unbelief, but belief is not faith. Anyone who knows God personally will not walk away from Him, for they will know Him intimately, and accept His ways...for He will make their wills the same as His. Why do you not get this?

[godrulz]

Originally posted by lighthouse

By lost, I mostly meant confused. But I fear that you do not understand a relationship wiht Christ. Just because it is possible to move from unbelief to faith, does not mean the opposite is true. It is possible to move from belief to unbelief, but belief is not faith. Anyone who knows God personally will not walk away from Him, for they will know Him intimately, and accept His ways...for He will make their wills the same as His. Why do you not get this?

I don't get this because it is contrary to Scripture. I agree it is folly and insanity to walk away from God. We are warned to not lose our first love. If our love can wane, it can also die (matter of degree on a continuum from committed faith to reprobate unbelief).

I would not define belief as narrowly as you. Biblical belief is more than head knowledge or mental assent. It involves the will, intellect, trust, knowledge, etc. Belief is faith if defined properly. Certainly, those with your version of 'belief' were never in the faith and can revert back. There is still no Scriptural, logical, or philosophical reason why someone cannot abandon their form committments. Your view necessarily negates free moral agency and our creation in the personal and moral image of God. It implies we are free in some ways, but coerced in other ways. There is a difference between WILL NOT fall away, and CANNOT fall away. The former is the norm, the latter is a theoretical possibility anecdotally and Scripturally.

[Lighthouse]

Is it possible for someone to deny the existence of someone they know personally? Yes or no?

P.S.
You defined faith the same way I do.

[godrulz]

Originally posted by lighthouse

Is it possible for someone to deny the existence of someone they know personally? Yes or no?

P.S.
You defined faith the same way I do.

Denying God's existence is the extreme end of the continuum of unbelief (atheism). There are theists who are not Christians (cults, other world religions). It is possible to still believe in God, but return to a counterfeit Christ (thinking one has actually found the truth...e.g. many Protestant, evangelicals have been deceived by Mormonism...they still think they know Christ, but they have shifted to a counterfeit Christ).

Followers of Jesus still knew He existed, yet some fell away (no reason to assume that some of them were not true disciples...e.g. Judas). They knew He existed still, but they no longer loved or served Him with their whole hearts. Eventually, there first love grew cold to the point of non-existent relationship.

Salvation is not mere mental assent to the existence of God. So whether they now believe God exists or not is not the primary issue. It is whether they still love, obey, and serve Him wholeheartedly. Salvation is a love relationship. In marriage, divorce severs the relationship. It has nothing to do with denying that your former mate exists (they obviously still exist, but the relationship is severed....it was once genuine and legal, but now a change of heart and relationship has nullified it).

One cannot deny the existence of someone they know/knew personally. However, they can chose to hate someone they once loved. They can chose to ignore or renounce the friendship saying to the person "Get out of my life forever."

The analogies are not perfect, but they are not totally dissimilar to our relationship with God.

[Lighthouse]

Originally posted by godrulz

Denying God's existence is the extreme end of the continuum of unbelief (atheism). There are theists who are not Christians (cults, other world religions). It is possible to still believe in God, but return to a counterfeit Christ (thinking one has actually found the truth...e.g. many Protestant, evangelicals have been deceived by Mormonism...they still think they know Christ, but they have shifted to a counterfeit Christ).
Because they never knew the true Christ, right?

Followers of Jesus still knew He existed, yet some fell away (no reason to assume that some of them were not true disciples...e.g. Judas). They knew He existed still, but they no longer loved or served Him with their whole hearts. Eventually, there first love grew cold to the point of non-existent relationship.
But they denied His Lordship, didn't they. So it holds that they never knew He is Lord. They just believed it.

Salvation is not mere mental assent to the existence of God. So whether they now believe God exists or not is not the primary issue. It is whether they still love, obey, and serve Him wholeheartedly. Salvation is a love relationship. In marriage, divorce severs the relationship. It has nothing to do with denying that your former mate exists (they obviously still exist, but the relationship is severed....it was once genuine and legal, but now a change of heart and relationship has nullified it).
Well, at least you're coming around to the realization that no atheist was ever a Christian. Hopefully we can move this along and understand why no one who walks away actually knew Christ.

One cannot deny the existence of someone they know/knew personally. However, they can chose to hate someone they once loved. They can chose to ignore or renounce the friendship saying to the person "Get out of my life forever."
Why would they do that? Because the other person let them down? Does anyone who knows God believe that He would ever let them down?

The analogies are not perfect, but they are not totally dissimilar to our relationship with God.
Certainly.

[godrulz]

Some atheists were once genuine Christians. They left their first love and now believe an intellectual lie. Some former believers are functional atheists, who believe in God, but live as if He does not exist.

I believe your logic is flawed (begging the question). You wrongly assume that someone who no longer believes cannot possibly have been a true Christian. This is true of many or most people, but it is not a Scriptural necessity. It shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of salvation as a reconciled relationship involving free moral agency (I assume it puts the emphasis on a unilateral legal transaction that God will not revoke since it is a literal payment of a debt). I believe your view is problematic and will not concede my position that it is theoretically possible to apostasize (as Scripture clearly warns about...this is not a disingenuous warning, but a possible reality we need to guard against).

It is insanity and reflects the hardness of man's heart and wiles of the enemy (without negating the power of God or efficaciousness of His redemption) if a person falls away. There is no good reason why someone would leave Christ, but it is theoretically possible unless God absolutely suspends free will in the believer (which is contrary to His Word and character). I am more free, not less free, as a believer. Salvation is not a passive thing where God now treats me as a robot controlling every thought, motive, action, belief, etc. I am still responsible for continuing in the faith. It is not a one time sinner's prayer that gives me immunity and license to live in the flesh or returning to my former life. It is possible for a dog to return to his vomit or a pig to return to the mud. The Prodigal Son who left the Father did return, but another scenario could have been that He never would return and would become a lost sheep or coin (that God goes after so that they would return, but He would not force them to love if they want to hate or reject).

[Lighthouse]

And why would they reject God? Because HE let them down. That's why. But we know that God does not let anyone down. So those who believe that God let them down, do not know God. And if they do not know God, He does not know them. Do you understand yet? Yes, we have free will, but no one will reject God, if they truly know Him. And if they do not truly know Him, they are not saved.

[godrulz]

Originally posted by lighthouse

And why would they reject God? Because HE let them down. That's why. But we know that God does not let anyone down. So those who believe that God let them down, do not know God. And if they do not know God, He does not know them. Do you understand yet? Yes, we have free will, but no one will reject God, if they truly know Him. And if they do not truly know Him, they are not saved.

Some people reject God because they feel let down by Him. They do not know His true love and character. They are believing a lie about God. There was a godly missionary (?Robert Flood) who went to Africa with his wife. They had two children. He was from Sweden and was prepared to die for the Gospel. When they got to Africa, his wife did in fact die leaving him with 2 small children. The only fruit from his ministry was a small boy who showed some interest. He left one of his children with another missionary in Africa and sent the other to America. He returned to Sweden bitter with God and became a businessman. In his 70s, he was a God-hating alcoholic living in a slum. He was convinced God let him down, and volitionally rejected the faith and person he once loved and served. This was more than possible given the nature of a love relationship that must be freely entered into and maintained. He very well could have died a reprobate, former servant of the Living God. Other similar cases exist where the person never returned to their first love whom they clearly knew and served.

In this case, his daughter from America tracked him down and told him of God's faithfulness to keep her (she became involved in a Bible College). The one little boy that was possible fruit of his ministry went on to become the head of the church in Zaire. He was responsible for the Gospel being heard all over the land. When Flood heard that God had not let him down, he repented in brokenness and died shortly after. This is not evidence of OSAS, but evidence that the mercy of God and ability of man worked in this case. He was not forced to return to his faith. It was very possible he would have persisted in his hatred.

I simply cannot agree that in ALL cases rejecting God has to mean they never knew Him. There is nothing in Scripture or philosophical logic that necessitates this. If they cannot theoretically reject God, despite knowing Him intimately, then free will is illusory. You cannot have your cake and eat it too. If a believer can never apostasize, then free will is not a reality for a believer. It is the exception for those who have tasted of the goodness of the Lord to fall away, but it is possible (Hebrews 6:4-6= apostasy).

Please attempt to explain Hebrews 6 in light of your view. Thank you in advance.

[Lighthouse]

It's not about the possibility that a believer could, or couldn't. The truth is that one in an intimate relationship with Christ, won't leave Him!

Hebrews 6:4-6 says that it is impossible to renew apostasizers back to repentance. Do you believe that? Wouldn't it hold that what the writer of Hebrews is saying is that those who walk away [never to return], were never in the position described in the above verses? And that those who were in that position, will return, but have no need to "start over?"

Is that corner comfortable?

[godrulz]

Apostasy is falling away from the truth. It implies one was genuinely in the truth.

If one was raised a Mormon, and then became a jack-Mormon, this is not apostasy from biblical truth. It is falling from error into another error. It is not true apostasy.

You deductively believe that once one is saved, they are always saved.
This dogmatic conclusion is supported by other assumptions:

i) If someone who professes faith dies hating God, this must mean they never had faith. This is true of some, but not all cases of apostasy.

or

ii) If they fall, they will return to faith in the end. Again, this is true of many, but not necessarily all cases of apostasy.

iii) I would suggest another possibility is that some genuine believers go on to be sifted by Satan and their choices and die in a state of godlessness (though previously godly). You deny this possibility, but what is there inherent to the nature of reconciliation that makes it impossible. Saying someone who loves God CANNOT vs WILL NOT fall is a sentimental assumption to support your preconceived premise.

Unless free will is suspended, there is no logical necessity to assume that someone cannot reject their Lord and Savior to return to false religion, Selfishness, or apathy. God will continue to draw and woo them, but He will not force them to return. This would violate His love, holiness, and justice.

[godrulz]

Originally posted by lighthouse

It's not about the possibility that a believer could, or couldn't. The truth is that one in an intimate relationship with Christ, won't leave Him!

Hebrews 6:4-6 says that it is impossible to renew apostasizers back to repentance. Do you believe that? Wouldn't it hold that what the writer of Hebrews is saying is that those who walk away [never to return], were never in the position described in the above verses? And that those who were in that position, will return, but have no need to "start over?"

Is that corner comfortable?

Does not compute.

[Lighthouse]

Then why don't you walk away? Since you believe you can.

[godrulz]

Originally posted by lighthouse

Then why don't you walk away? Since you believe you can.

Speaking for myself and hundreds of millions of believers...there is a difference between will not walk away and cannot walk away. Millions will not walk away because of His love, grace, keeping power, goodness, etc. I have decided to follow Jesus, no turning back, no turning back. It would be moral and intellectual suicide to leave the one who loved me and died for me. I will live for Him. I counted the cost. His love constrains me.

This was once the experience of many other former Christians. "Disappointments" with God or life, hardness of heart, deception of Satan, love for sin/self, rebellion, apathy, etc. (as many excuses as renouncers of their faith) have sifted some. Some repent and return, while others persist in their return to godlessness and die apart from relationship with Christ that they once had.

If salvation is a relationship and not a physical, irreversible, unilateral change foisted on us by God, then free will demands a 'will or will not' vs 'cannot' view.

[Lighthouse]

But the verse you gave me, said that it was impossible for apostasizers to return. Well, by your interpretation, anyway...:rolleyes:

[geralduk]

To resist the irisistable is to bring destruction upon yourself.


Thus God has, does and will by the HOLY SPIRIT annointed preaching(in the main) CONVICT in such a manner that it is in truth IREFUTBLY and MANIFESTLY tru; which if resisted and rejected brings the wrath of God and destruction upon ones own head.

The knowledge of 'T.U.L.I.P' does NOT in any way mean that you UNDERSTAND the principles of scripture.

SAUL had a GREAT knowledge of the SCRIPTURES but KNEW not the TRUTH!

tHE SCRIBES AND THE PHARASEES .........................THOUGHT they knew the scriptures and in them they "boasted" but KNEW NOT HIM of whom the scriptures SPOKE OF!

Do not think then that ebcause we have been to theological college and can 'argue' and debate' theology till the cows come home that you have come to a (LIVELY) knowldge of the truth!

The ONLY sure and CERTAIN means of knowing if you knwo the truth is by DOING IT!
Or LIVING it.
or WALKING in it.
For I know perhaps a lot about the USA but that is ALL I have a knowledge of it.
To KNOW it I must go there and walk upon its paths and among its people.
and they who have BEEN there KNOW them who say they have also .

The PROFESSOR on the beach who has never got into the water though bringing may "learned" arguments as to the whys, wherefores and denials but compared to the child who has actulay GOEN IN TO THE ANKLES and up to the loins and swam in it is ignorant of the truth.
Though they be ver so "learned"
and the child knows more and has more joy than he who sits on the beach and says it is foolishness.
WATER cannot suport your weight!

Will laugh at the proffessor and with all encouragent seek by words and actions show that it IS possible.
But he sticking to his 'knowledge' will refuse and say the child deludes himself.

His knowledge then BLINDS him to the truth.
Did not PAUL say I sought to know NOTHING save CHRIST and Him CRUCYFIED and YEA risen from the dead.
Far better then to be a foolish in the worlds eyes than to be foolish in Gods.
Better then to be foolish in the worlds eyes and wise in Gods.
"For the fooolishness of God is wiser than the wisdom of men"
and God has chosen the foolish to confound the wisdom of the3 wise.
and by" the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe"

Why be foolish then and resist that which is iristable.
and resist that which is; which is the devil.
For we arre to submit ourselves unto God and to resist the devil. and in doing so will prove ourselves to be wise.
For the fear of God is the beginning of wisdom.

[godrulz]

Originally posted by lighthouse

But the verse you gave me, said that it was possible for apostasizers to return. Well, by your interpretation, anyway...:rolleyes:

The flow of argument, exegesis, context, etc. of Heb. 6 is specific. Other relevant passages give the full picture. In this example, it is impossible for them to return if they persist in trusting Judaism.. In other cases (prodigal son story), if they come to their senses due to the love, mercy, and persuasion of God, He welcomes them back with open arms. Many OT prophecies were conditional. If they persist in rebellion, the nation or individual would be judged. If they repent in response to God's prophecy, He also would relent or change His mind and demonstrate mercy instead of wrath. Our choice: love/mercy/grace or justice/wrath (Open Theism).

In a nutshell, the converted Hebraic (vs Gentile) Christians were being tempted to return to Judaism or a mix of Judeo-Christianity. The writer of Hebrews argues that Christ is the fulfillment of the shadow/type. He is the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world. It would be useless and wrong to try to add to his finished work by circumcising Gentiles, keeping the ceremonial laws, offering animal sacrifices, keeping the Sabbath, etc. Their salvation came by trusting the person and work of Christ. If they go back to the Old Covenant (which some of them were due to pressure from Judaizers, etc.), then they are now outside of grace and the New Covenant (reality vs shadow). The death and resurrection of Christ, the Gospel, was to be their hope. Returning or apostasizing back to Judaism would leave them without salvation or hope. The warning was that they would put themselves under the law and would be rejecting the sacrifice of Christ. If they persisted in this misplaced trust, they would be lost in the end. Some heeded the warning and returned to faith in Christ alone. Others resisted the temptation and remained in the faith. Some gave up on Christ and returned to their former religion. The consequence was now judgment and the same position they were in before they heard the Gospel of Christ.

Heb. 3:12-14 "See to it, BROTHERS, that none of you has a sinful, UNBELIEVING heart that TURNS AWAY from the living God...But encourage one another daily..so that none of you (believes) may be hardened by sin's deceitfulness. We have come to share Christ IF (conditional aspect) WE hold firmly till the END (persevere) the confidence we had at first."

Hebrews warns about the POSSIBILITY of believers turning away from God (just as it encourages unbelievers to turn TO God). One cannot return to animal sacrifices by themselves or trusting Christ and animals if they hope to be found in Him in the end. Remain/abide in Him, and He will remain/adide in us. Forsake Him, and He will forsake you (He will never forsake us if our hearts are turned towards Him).

[Jerry Shugart]

Originally posted by godrulz
In a nutshell, the converted Hebraic (vs Gentile) Christians were being tempted to return to Judaism or a mix of Judeo-Christianity. The writer of Hebrews argues that Christ is the fulfillment of the shadow/type. He is the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world. It would be useless and wrong to try to add to his finished work by circumcising Gentiles, keeping the ceremonial laws, offering animal sacrifices, keeping the Sabbath, etc.
godrulz,

I agree with you here.
Their salvation came by trusting the person and work of Christ. If they go back to the Old Covenant (which some of them were due to pressure from Judaizers, etc.), then they are now outside of grace and the New Covenant (reality vs shadow). The death and resurrection of Christ, the Gospel, was to be there hope. Returning or apostasizing back to Judaism would leave them without salvation or hope.
Could you give me the Scripture that supports what you say here?

In His grace,--Jerry

[godrulz]

Originally posted by Jerry Shugart

godrulz,

I agree with you here.

Could you give me the Scripture that supports what you say here?

In His grace,--Jerry

This was general thoughts and commentary off the top of my head. I thought it was consistent with the gist of Hebrews, or it could have come from historical, cultural studies about Judaizers, Gnostics, Docetists, etc....early heresies that can be studied in secular writing and alluded to in Scripture. I do not have a proof text off the top of my head, but an rambling based on the gist of Scripture and previous studies on background (years ago, so do not quote me on every word....check the historical background in commentaries on Hebrews, Galatians, Colossians, I Jn., etc....that dealt with those who mixed Christianity with heresy).

[Lighthouse]

godrulz-

That was supposed to say, 'impossible." I fixed it.

Anyway, at what moment is salvation lost? What specific moment?

[Lighthouse]

Limited Atonement:
Jesus died only for the elect. Though Jesus’ sacrifice was sufficient for all, it was not efficacious for all. Jesus only bore the sins of the elect. Support for this position is drawn from such scriptures as Matt. 26:28 where Jesus died for ‘many'[quote]�For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.�[quote]; John 10:11, 15 which say that Jesus died for the sheep (not the goats, per Matt. 25:32-33)�I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep.� �As the Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father: and I lay down my life for the sheep.�
“And before him shall be gathered all the nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats: and he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left.�; John 17:9 where Jesus in prayer interceded for the ones given Him, not those of the entire world�I pray for them: I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast given me; for they are thine.�; Acts 20:28 and Eph. 5:25-27 which state that the Church was purchased by Christ, not all people�Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over which the holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.� “Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it; that he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, that he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.�; and Isaiah 53:12 which is a prophecy of Jesus’ crucifixion where he would bore the sins of many (not all).�Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he hath poured out his soul unto death; and he was numbered with the transgressors; and he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.�

First of all, I would like to point out that the prayer in John 17 is in regard to the twelve disciples. That is obvious within the context. So John 17:9 is useless for the doctrine of 'Limited Atonement.' John 17:12 says, “While I was with them in the world, I kept them in thy name: those that thou gavest me I have kept, and none of them is lost, except the son of perdition; that the scripture might be fulfilled.� This is in reference to Judas, for he betrayed Christ.

Now, why are there the verses where it says that Jesus will die, or died, for many, but not all? Is it because it was known that not all would respond to God's grace? It is not that there were those who would not even be able to know God's grace. It is that there are those who won't know it, because they don't want to know it. They refuse to accept that they need it. So it was known that not all would confess Jesus as Lord, and accept the grace of God. But this does not mean it is hopeless for them. It will not be hopeless for them until the day they die.

[godrulz]

Originally posted by lighthouse

godrulz-

That was supposed to say, 'impossible." I fixed it.

Anyway, at what moment is salvation lost? What specific moment?

God alone knows the heart. Some children do not remember the exact day they became a Christian. It seemed more like a process to them. The slippery slope to apostasy can be punctiliar in a conscious, decisive renunciation of Christ and the faith (some have done this after the death of a child, for example). Others gradually drift over time and may find themselves outside the faith by their death. At some point, it would have to be a conscious decision to return to trusting self rather than God. It would vary individual by individual and sometimes only God would know. Other times, it is an obvious, defiant shaking of the fist at God (I previously gave an example of a missionary whose wife died in Africa leading to his downward spiral and hatred of God).

[Jerry Shugart]

Originally posted by godrulz

This was general thoughts and commentary off the top of my head. I thought it was consistent with the gist of Hebrews, or it could have come from historical, cultural studies about Judaizers, Gnostics, Docetists, etc....early heresies that can be studied in secular writing and alluded to in Scripture. I do not have a proof text off the top of my head, but an rambling based on the gist of Scripture and previous studies on background (years ago, so do not quote me on every word....check the historical background in commentaries on Hebrews, Galatians, Colossians, I Jn., etc....that dealt with those who mixed Christianity with heresy).
godrulz,

Your idea that the Hebrews is teaching loss of salvation cannot be correct because in other places the believers are assured that their salvation is without end:

"...having obtained eternal redemption for us"(Heb.9:12).

"For by one offering He hath perfected forever them that are sanctified"(Heb.10:14).

In His grace,--Jerry

[Jerry Shugart]

and Isaiah 53:12 which is a prophecy of Jesus’ crucifixion where he would bore the sins of many (not all).
The OT Scriptures did not reveal that the Lord Jesus would die for "all",but that does not mean that He only died for some:

"Who gave Himself a ransom for all,to be testified in due time"(1Tim.2:6).

In His grace,--Jerry

[godrulz]

Originally posted by Jerry Shugart

godrulz,

Your idea that the Hebrews is teaching loss of salvation cannot be correct because in other places the believers are assured that their salvation is without end:

"...having obtained eternal redemption for us"(Heb.9:12).

"For by one offering He hath perfected forever them that are sanctified"(Heb.10:14).

In His grace,--Jerry

A believers salvation is absolutely secure if we are in Christ. If we return to Judaism or Buddhism, then we are no longer in Christ and the promises and security do not apply.

I believe in conditional, biblical eternal security, not unconditional eternal security (OSAS).

This is one area I disagree with "The Plot".

If salvation is a reconciled relationship and not a physical change or commercial transaction, then it is theoretically possible to renounce our faith.

Heb. 6 is a warning about falling away/apostasy(cf. Heb. 3).

Heb. 9; 10 is a different context. It is our hope and security as believers who do not fall away.

Heb. 10:19 ff. is another context of a call to persevere. There is a conditional aspect to salvation (Rev. 2;3).

10:26 "IF we (believers) deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the knowledge of the truth, no sacrifice for sins is left, but only a fearful expectation of judgment and of raging fire that will consume the ENEMIES of God....insulted the Spirit of grace..it is a dreadful things to fall into the hands of the living God."

[Jerry Shugart]

Originally posted by godrulz
A believers salvation is absolutely secure if we are in Christ. If we return to Judaism or Buddhism, then we are no longer in Christ and the promises and security do not apply.
godrulz,

Once a person believes the gospel he is placed "in Christ" and he is preserved "in Christ":

"...to them who are sanctified by God,the Father,and preserved in Jesus Christ,and called..."(Jude1).

If a person is "preserved" in Jesus Christ then it is obvious that they will always remain "in Jesus Christ".
10:26 "IF we (believers) deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the knowledge of the truth, no sacrifice for sins is left, but only a fearful expectation of judgment and of raging fire that will consume the ENEMIES of God....insulted the Spirit of grace..it is a dreadful things to fall into the hands of the living God."
This can be in reference to a "temporal" punishment,and not to "eternal" punishment.

[Lighthouse]

Originally posted by godrulz

God alone knows the heart. Some children do not remember the exact day they became a Christian. It seemed more like a process to them. The slippery slope to apostasy can be punctiliar in a conscious, decisive renunciation of Christ and the faith (some have done this after the death of a child, for example). Others gradually drift over time and may find themselves outside the faith by their death. At some point, it would have to be a conscious decision to return to trusting self rather than God. It would vary individual by individual and sometimes only God would know. Other times, it is an obvious, defiant shaking of the fist at God (I previously gave an example of a missionary whose wife died in Africa leading to his downward spiral and hatred of God).
Salvation can be lost gradually?:confused:

So, where do people go, if they die with only half their salvation?

[godrulz]

Originally posted by lighthouse

Salvation can be lost gradually?:confused:

So, where do people go, if they die with only half their salvation?

Salvation cannot be lost gradually.

You are either in Christ or you are not. What I mean is that there is a continuum or slippery slope where someone who neglects their faith could end up renouncing it eventually.

e.g. a godly pastor or evangelist may be tempted and commit adultery. This leads to divorce and lies. Perhaps his child gets hit by a bus and dies. He starts doubting his faith. God seems unjust. He can't handle the pain so he starts drinking. God sees the heart whether it is still turned to God or not. As he continues to allow bitterness in, he starts looking at other religions. The enemy puts doubt and deception in his path. He embraces Unitarianism, Mormonism, Bahai, or atheism thinking these have better answers about life and death. He renounces his faith and possibly even theism. He no longer believes in God, Christianity, etc. The new world view does not take away the pain. He shakes his fist at God and says I hate you, I do not even believe in you. He curses the name of Christ. In the end, his despair leads to suicide. He dies with a hard heart.

This was a process. At one point he was in the faith. At some point he quenched and grieved the Spirit who was convicting and keeping him. God alone knew the point where he would have died lost. It may have been early or later.

Others dabble in this or that and it may be more obvious when they deny Christ. God, man, and the person know that the person has willfully rejected Christianity and Christ for other alternatives. They may even write books about it (Charles Templeton).

This sounds extreme, but it illustrates the experience of some who have started the race, but did not complete it (hence the exhortations to run and persevere to the end). He is able to keep us, but we are also able to jump ship if we have free moral agency.

[godrulz]

Originally posted by Jerry Shugart

godrulz,

Once a person believes the gospel he is placed "in Christ" and he is preserved "in Christ":

"...to them who are sanctified by God,the Father,and preserved in Jesus Christ,and called..."(Jude1).

If a person is "preserved" in Jesus Christ then it is obvious that they will always remain "in Jesus Christ".

This can be in reference to a "temporal" punishment,and not to "eternal" punishment.

Jude 1 is a promise for those who abide and remain in Christ. The letter is a warning about heresy and apostasy. Believers are encouraged to persevere and not abandon their faith. We are preserved IF we are in Christ. There is a conditional aspect based on other passages. If they follow a false teacher or heresy and deny the Lord who saved them, the promise no longer applies. Then they can expect judgment.

I would still maintain Hebrews supports the idea of apostasy and return to Judaism by a genuine believer (new, not growing Christian who falls away, etc.). This results in eternal judgment and ruin. Temporal punishment/discipline can take place to turn them back to Christ. If they persist in their apostasy, they will face eternal punishment. It is not necessary to conclude that they were never believers before, or that they will get to heaven despite their return to trusting the shadow/type vs the fulfillment in Christ.

[Jerry Shugart]

Originally posted by godrulz
Jude 1 is a promise for those who abide and remain in Christ.
Jude 1 is a promise to all Christians--those who are sanctified by the Father.

And according to the promise all Christian's are "preserved" in Christ.

That means that once a sinner believes then he is placed in the Body of Christ and is promised that the Lord will "preserve" them in the Body of Christ.

That is exactly what John says:

"And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son"(1Jn.5:11).

John is telling Christians that they already have been given ("hath given") "eternal" life in the Son.

The word "eternal" is translated from the Greek word "aionios",which means "without end,never to cease,everlasting"("Thayer's Greek English Lexicon").

So in effect John is telling each and every Christian that "God hath given us a life in the Son which is "never to cease".

And if one could somehow lose this "eternal" life then that would mean that it was never "eternal" to begin with.But John uses the word "aionious" to describe the life which the believer has in the Son--a life that is "without end".

In His grace,--Jerry

[OMEGA]

Sanctificatiion is all well and good but


Jesus said that he who denies me , I will deny before the Father.

Mt 10:33 But whosoever shall deny me before men,

him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven.

2Ti 2:12 If we suffer, we shall also reign with him: if we deny him, he also will deny us:
2Ti 2:13 If we believe not, yet he abideth faithful: he cannot deny himself.
Tit 1:16 They profess that they know God; but in works they deny him, being abominable, and disobedient, and unto every good work reprobate.

[Jerry Shugart]

Originally posted by OMEGA

Sanctificatiion is all well and good but...
OMEGA,

Tell me why we should not believe that John is saying that the Christian already possesses a life in the Son that is "without end".

Explain what John is saying and then I will answer the verses which you provided.

In His grace,--Jerry

[OMEGA]

JERRY,

John 3:10 Art thou a master of Israel, and knowest not these things?

A Christian is a Christian as long as he follows Christ.

If he deliberately Rebels and denies Christ and goes the way of the World, then he NO LONGER has Eternal Life and will be Resurrected with the Rest at the end of the 1000 years.

Because that Eternal Life is IN CHRIST [ he has Eternal Life to give ] and if we Remain IN CHRIST , he knows who are his
and those who REMAIN and Endure till he End , then at that time
the Angels will come down with our new bodies and put our Spirits in those Glorified Bodies and we will then be Spirits inside Eternal Bodies.
-------------------


Joh 14:1 Let not your heart be troubled: ye believe in God, believe also in me.

Joh 15:2 Every branch in me that beareth not fruit he taketh away: and every branch that beareth fruit, he purgeth it, that it may bring forth more fruit.

Joh 15:4 Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it abide in the vine; no more can ye, except ye abide in me.

Joh 15:5 I am the vine, ye are the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing.

Joh 15:6 If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned.

2John1:9 Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son.


----------------------------------------------
Joh 14:23 Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.

[godrulz]

Originally posted by Jerry Shugart

Jude 1 is a promise to all Christians--those who are sanctified by the Father.

And according to the promise all Christian's are "preserved" in Christ.

That means that once a sinner believes then he is placed in the Body of Christ and is promised that the Lord will "preserve" them in the Body of Christ.

That is exactly what John says:

"And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son"(1Jn.5:11).

John is telling Christians that they already have been given ("hath given") "eternal" life in the Son.

The word "eternal" is translated from the Greek word "aionios",which means "without end,never to cease,everlasting"("Thayer's Greek English Lexicon").

So in effect John is telling each and every Christian that "God hath given us a life in the Son which is "never to cease".

And if one could somehow lose this "eternal" life then that would mean that it was never "eternal" to begin with.But John uses the word "aionious" to describe the life which the believer has in the Son--a life that is "without end".

In His grace,--Jerry

Eternal life is not a 'thing' that is incorporated into our genes and cannot be reversed. If we are in the Son, we have eternal life. This is the hope and promise for believers. If we are outside Christ, we will experience everlasting punishment (Jn. 3).

All humans live forever, whether in heaven or hell. They have everlasting existence.

John gives assurance for believers. The issue is whether a believer can revert to becoming an unbeliever, just as an unbeliever can become a believer.

The text does not necessitate that apostasy is impossible (see Hebrews). It correctly affirms that believers will live forever with Christ, and that those who forsake Christ or who never knew Him will not have eternal life. The perseverance of the saints, unconditional vs conditional eternal security, etc. must be based on all verses, not a proof text.

The verb tenses in I Jn. also support the idea of not just a one time belief in the past. The present tense is a continuous tense, so those who believe and move from death to life, also continue to believe. If they cease believing, the hope and promise no longer applies. Having the Son in the distant past and being a devil worshipper now does not qualify one for the promise. It is conditional on believing and continuing to believe (based on Greek present tense; the aorist tense could indicate a one time belief; imperfect tense would imply believing in the past and continuing to believe).

A study on the Johannine use of 'eternal life' is also in order. It is not a thing deposited to the believer that cannot be lost if one ceases to believe (which is possible unless God negates free moral agency at conversion).

In Christ= eternal life.

Never been in Christ= damnation.

Once in Christ, but now reject Him= damnation.

The issue is not heaven or hell, but whether one is in or outside of Christ at death