I don’t remember how I came to embrace what is know as Calvinism or the Doctrines of Grace. And as much as I try to find a way around it I can’t get pass what I feel to be an honest reading of the scriptures. There are times I come across scriptures that seem to tug me in the other direction, but by the end of all of my reading and rereading of the New Testament, things such as the sovereign and unconditional election of the believer, the security of the believer, by being seated with Christ in heaven, and the depravity of mankind to the fact that it seems that they will not search out God seems to be the most consistent.
I think the biggest problem that many people have with those who embrace the Doctrines of Grace is the fact that they have big heads and the hearts of ants! I can’t deny this because most of those I interact with online and even some in person happen to fit the bill. The Doctrines of Grace become something to believe that separates us from other believers and not something to live that drive us to serve other believers and even the lost. So I am going to attempt to tackle 3 points of the doctrine of grace and how they should be lived out. Let me know what you think (all checks can be mailed to…)
Perseverance of the Saints
Many who hold to the Doctrines of Grace simultaneously embraces the Puritans. I will tell you upfront I am no fan of the Puritans. I tried the little reading club and purchased a bunch of books from Banner of Truth but by the second book, I felt that I needed to go to confession, Celebrate Recovery, Excommunicate myself, and then join a monastery! Why? Because they focused on Sin more than Christ. I found myself policing my entire life, instead of depending on and trusting in the only one who could save me. I found myself doing the opposite of what they were saying. Which was applying the blood to the doorposts of my life, instead of trying to stack up enough chips to pay the house back what I owed!
The perseverance of the saints happen to be the most beautiful doctrine for the believer. I believe it goes hand in hand with justification, regeneration and adoption. I will go on the record to say that the perseverance of the saints actually encompasses or I would say actually can be defined by the simultaneous and seamless work of God in regenerating, justifying and adopting us.
So how does it work? Simply put. When I understand that I am secure my focus shifts from me trying to earn righteousness, favor and divine blessing and my focus shifts to the one who imparts righteousness, favor and divine blessing. So Christ can now be my treasure. Unlike the pirate who can never rest because he knows the owner will come looking for his treasure, perseverance gives me the treasure with full title! I don’t have to worry about protecting it, it is fully mine. Many Christians today who don’t believe that find themselves, focusing their energy on trying to stay reconciled to God instead of reconciling the world to God. I live for self preservation versus sharing the Divine Father and all He has to offer to the world. I believe this is why many Christians don’t reach out to others and have very little relationships with those who threaten their safety from all things sin.
Depravity
Two of my favorite verses are found in Ephesians 2:1-10 and Titus 3:1-8. In both Paul reminds the believers of their past depravity and hopelessness in order for them to see the graciousness of God but also to see their total inability to come to God on their own accord. I want you to also note that in both of these sections, Paul turns them to good works to be done because of God’s grace in their lives. Because God has done a gracious work in us, that is, Him sending His Son to secure all who are the elect, we are now to extend God to the world by doing good works!
I also want to focus on our graciousness towards the sinner. We were dead and without hope. And God loved us and showed us the richness of His mercy. But for some reason those who embrace the Doctrines of Grace seem to be the most judgmental and abrasive. We who uphold depravity, especially total inability should be the nicest folks on the planet. We should make the Cleavers look like the Bloods and Crips. But we can be the harshest, the most impatient, and the most judgmental, easily forgetting our inability and God’s work of Grace in regeneration. We were dead and there was nothing we did to be regenerated or to have God shine His love in our hearts. We should extend grace like its nobodys business.
Election:
Election goes hand in hand with Depravity. But we understand that God loved us because of His own divine mercy and the only and I do mean only reason we are saved is due to the extreme grace of God. We didn’t pull the long straw or pick the right number, nor was there any spark of goodness in us. We could have easily been on highway to hell doing a 150MPH with no brakes. But God chose us from the foundation of the world that He may show His kindness. We understand that God is so totally self sufficient that He doesn’t need humans nor angels to worship Him. We understand that it is God’s mercy that allows us to worship Him. We understand that it costs the Father a Son to redeem us. We understand that we weren’t the cream of the crop. Paul says to the Corinths that “you were a bunch of nobodys”. We should be the last to boast! We should be the last to look down our noses. We should be the last to shake our head at the nonbeliever. Or call the Atheist dumb, or mock the Muslim, or belittle the Witch. We should be quick to show mercy and compassion because we understand that it was God alone who accomplished the salvation we now enjoy and walk in. The Doctrine of election should be the most humbling and humiliating doctrine, but it seems to produce the most proud. Given the scope of our condition before God I can’t understand how.
I close with this. If you are one who upholds the Doctrines of Grace, you should be quick to show mercy and be a sloth at judging (myself included). Why? Because God interrupted history in His Son to reverse the curse and the subsequent damnation that we were all faced with. It was not because God saw a spark of good in us, it is because He is good alone. The next time you see a guy boasting in his righteousness in the name of the Doctrines of Grace you may want to remind him what such a doctrine implies.
Lionel, THANK YOU and AMEN!!!!!!!
Beautifully written, thanks for the reminder.
This is a classic piece of writing brother. A true representation of what the Doctrines of Grace can do in the lives of the believer.
this is a very good word bro…I read somewhere that a “Calvinism that does not humble misses the mark…”
Jude 2-3,
Q
Q,
This is nicest thing you have ever said to me
Lionel,
You said:
” I think the biggest problem that many people have with those who embrace the Doctrines of Grace is the fact that they have big heads and the hearts of ants!”
So true. Though I am new to the Doctrines of Grace I worked in an institution (Famous Bible College) that held to these. I was amazed at the coldness that I experienced by some of those who were suppose to be the light of Christ. No zeal, no fire, no emotion. Dead Orthodoxy!! That is the downside of Reformed Circles I have to admit.
You also said:
“But we can be the harshest, the most impatient, and the most judgmental, easily forgetting our inability and God’s work of Grace in regeneration. We should make the Cleavers look like the Bloods and Crips. But we can be the harshest, the most impatient, and the most judgmental, easily forgetting our inability and God’s work of Grace in regeneration. We were dead and there was nothing we did to be regenerated or to have God shine His love in our hearts. We should extend grace like its nobodys business.”
Gee Wally!!! Agian you are correct. When Theology and the Word of God become an Idol; (I know I sound like a heretic right now but hear me out). When we studying the scriptures and theology on a day to day basis for the purpose of knowledge we become Pharisees. Jesus told the religious people of his day In John 5:39:
“You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and(B) it is they that bear witness about me, yet you refuse to come to me that you may have life.”
The whole purpose of searching teh scriptures is to piont us to Christ. Unfortunately many fall short and stop at the attaining of Knowledge and never COME TO JESUS to worship, praise, pray and fellowship. If your Goal is to obtain Knowledge and you stop there, without going on to fellowship, communion with Christ then the Word of God has become and Idol in a sense. You have resolved to live the Christian life on the Words of Christ without having the Person of Christ. Jesus is the Goal. And I beleive that in the Reformed circles so many BOAST of their holding to the Doctrines of Grace as the Truth of God’s Word yet are so cold, callous, and outright nasty to people of other secondary beieves, races, denominations etc..
Reformed Circles in essence have rejected the Ministry of the Holy Spirit due to the crazy T.D. Jakes, Paul Crouch style fiasco that we see on tv. But as I read my bible and see throughout history that men sang, danced, jumped for joy, expressed excitement and were demonstrative in their worship I scratch my head and wonder how could those who have embraced the truth of God’s Word reject the very scriptures that show the effects of God’s Love, Mercy, and Kindness towards man. The lame man was “jumping and leaping and praising God” Do that in a reformed church and you will get the boot. I believe that it is going to take a new generation of young mend who understand the true teacings of the Word of God and the Doctrines of Grace and also the true leadings of the Holy Spirit and start churches where people can hold to sound doctrine and still express themselves to God in praise and worship in an orderly fashion without being labled a lunatic or emotional basket case.
Have we fortotten to be human? Have we forgotten to show emotion? The very people who refuse to lift up their hands in a reformed worship service or show any sign of emotion are the same dudes on Sunday night who go balistic in front of their TV when the Dallas Cowgirls score a touchdown. (go Giants!)
No wonder why there are not that many blacks and latinos in reformed circles. But I believe God is going to change that. I pray He will.
If we claim to hold the truth then we need to hold to ALL of the truth. “Shout unto God with a voice of Triumph!”
That will most likely get you thrown out of any reformed church.
Steve
whatever! Lol! i jumped back on to put a “p.s.” (of slight disagreement
)to my last post re a couple of things you said…but I guess I should don’t want to spoil my new reputation on your blog for being nice! 
I meant…”but I guess I should (keep it to myself…) don’t want to spoil my new reputation on your blog for being nice!”
Steve,
I would like to comment on two things you stated to Lionel,
If we claim to hold the truth then we need to hold to ALL of the truth. “Shout unto God with a voice of Triumph!”
That will most likely get you thrown out of any reformed church.”
I would like to introduce you to Conway Celebration Church here in Conway Arkansas. They are reformed in teaching and yet dance and shout in the time of worship.
Plus there is a group started in Jacksonville, Arkansas called Fellowship of Reformed Charismatic Churches.
They also hold to the reformed teachings and the gifts as explained in 1 Corinthians. They don’t hold to the doctrines of the “charismatic” church with it’s abuses.
I am in fellowship with these and when I moved here from Texas I got a good teaching of the Reformed Doctrines.
http://www.conwaycelebration.org Check them out.
So there are a lot of Reformed Churches out there that are not against dancing and lifting up holy hands.
Now I will admit they can be a little stuffy at times.
The second comment is about the “cowgirls” oh man!!
You can’t dis Americas team….Just joking!!!!
I am a Cowboys fan but not a fanatic.
Steven O
Steve,
BTW, here is the link to the Reformed Charismatic chruches:
http://www.reformedcharismatic.org
Steven O
Steven that encourages me greatly. And I know there are some churches out there that are Free and Reformed. But that you have to admit is not the norm.
I am pursing my MDiv and Lord willing one day will start an urban churh. I want blacks, white, spanish, asian, indian, arabs, whatever the make up of the niehborhood is I want the doors to be open, Doctrines of Grace to be preached, and a spirit of worship were we can get stupid for Jesus
joking but you get my point.
Steve O
I am not a fanatic either but I do love the Big Blue Go Giants!!! I know this is a sin and we are not to hate but I really enjoy hating on the Cowgirls!!
Stev, I actually typed the wrong link:
It should have been http://www.charismaticreformed.org
I hear you loud and clear.
I have a neighbor behind my house who bleeds Cowboys.
So I’ll just sic him on you!! joking also!
It is honestly great to be able to speak to other believers on these subjects. It is freeing to know we are not alone.
Steven O
Lionel-
Very well said.
Steve-
You are so correct. I totally agree that outward expression is a wonderful way to show our God how grateful we are for reversing the curse and enabling us to persevere in sanctification. In fact, I am all about lifting up holy hands, singing songs, shouting to God, crying, etc…
Reformed circles generally don’t express any outward zeal or excitement for the gospel that saved their souls, but I have to wonder…could it be that they want to be so careful as not to shame the gospel? Not to seem as though outward expression is synonomous with being saved?
Churches that are more charasmatic in nature tend to put more emphasis on outward manisfestation than teaching doctrine. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve gone to church and there was no sermon due to the “work of the Holy Spirit.” And a lot of times, it just looks like a big show.
I can’t say I blame the reformed circles for not wanting to emulate anything that will be remotely close to looking like a big show, but that’s not to say that they should cease or not encourage outward manifestions of praise and adoration for God’s grace.
Steve,
Very well said, as you know I am a Charismatic (as in the gifts being fully functional today) due to the bible being the final authority (not Sola Scriptura Javetta
). I am also a bit more expressive in my praise. So I lift hands, I cry at times, I move a bit more frequently than some of my friends would like.
Now I call them Cowgirls also! I am a ummmmhhh….., well, ummmmhhhh, okay, ummmhhhhh Lions fan! If anyone laughs I will delete all of their future comments! I actually have a post coming called “The Day The Spirit Died” which will talk quite a bit about this. By the way don’t forget the Sovereign Grace Fellowship of Churches (Mahney, Harris……) they are also Charismatic both expressively and theologically. Though they are Covenantal! (uggghh). New Covenant Theology is the truth and I have the bible to prove it
Javetta,
It is the pendulam swing. One side the charasmatic circle has had some very disturbing and extreme forms of emotional outbreaks (can’t really call it worship). What happens is people see that and swing the pendulem as far away from that as they can. Now you have Funeral Services on one side, and Ringling Bros. Circus on the other side. But we can come to the conclusion that somewhere in the middle is probably the truth of both sides. Doctrine and Healthy Expression in True Worship to God.
My Experience in Charasmatic circles is it is basically experiential in it’s theology as opposed to doctrinal. The preaching is based on a verse or two and then the sermon is about how the preacher or other beleivers have experienced that truth in their lives. Also they tend to preach about what we don’t have and never preach on what we do have.
For example: A sermon can go something like this…….God is calling you up to a higher plataeu , he has more power, more anointing for you. You need more of the Spirit to be more effective. This in a sense is true but they keep you reaching for what you don’t have and never stop to teach you what you do have. What Christ has done already. I, in my 20 years in a Charasmatic Church have never heard one sermon on Atonement, Expiation, Propitiation, Redemption etc.
I heard 10 million on being filled with the Spirit (which I do not deny) but never on what Christ HAS done for me. Who I am in Christ etc..
All you need is the Holy Spirit is the main message. You don’t need Doctrine, its dead. The Spirit Gives Life.
The old saying goes like this “The word with out the Spirit you dry up…The Spirit without the Word you Blow up….The Word and the Spirit you Grow up!
We need More Word in the Charasmatic side and More Spirit in the Reformed side (or should I say more openess to the Spirit).
Steve
Lionel? Lions?? Yeah I can see why your a Detriot Fan
Maybe you will be blessed one day and be able to watch them actually play in a Super Bowl. You can explain to your great great grandchildren as you watch the game how long you have waited 
Lionel on a serious note. I hope you don’t jump around too much in worship. I personally have a problem with black men in Speed O’s jumping around in worship services. But maybe I am just a racist!
For real on a real serious note. I am just starting to study Covenant Theology and some things on Disepensationalism that I have only been taught). I am not aware of new covenant theology except for the fact that some like R.C. Spoul call it heresy?
I will have to study this before I can come to a conclusion.
Steve
Steve,
Monergism just offered a new book on the subject that appears to de decent…
New Covenant Theology that is…..
Thanks Brian,
I think I have paid for Monergism’s Bills for the next 5 years with all the books I have purchased in the last 2 months
Steve-
I love the pendulum swing analogy! It is quite fitting for this particular issue. I do want to be totally clear that I AM NOT A CESSATIONIST–I do believe that’s the one thing charasmatics do have going for themselves.
Lionel-
Hahahaha…very funny…
Brian,
Whats the book?
Javetta,
I understood that as I am not a cessationsit either. I am not a Calvinist either or an Arminian or a Charasmatic or an Asthmatic either
I am a follower of Christ, a Redeemed Sinner. Saved by Grace.
I hate the labels but I know in order to understand where once comes from we use them so I am not against it in a sense but I like to tell people I am a christian and doctrinally I believe most of what the Reformed Faith holds to though truly reformed would not accept me because of my belief in tongues.
I should start a store front church for Calviniasts: The Calvin/Arminian Baptist Charasmatic Doctrine of Grace Holy Ghost Church of God Almighty and Savior Lord Jesus Christ Saints of God Tabernacle.
Senior Pastor: The Annointed, Appointed, and Double Jointed Prophet Teacher Evangelist Right Reverend Chief Apostle Tongues Speaking Devil Chasing Mand of God Dr. Steve
Not sure if the sign on a store front would have that much room so I would have to shortent the name of the church….
Javetta,
Also I do not believe in the Gift of Tongues and Prophesy the way that I have seen it used in most Charasmatic Churches. I believe it is Biblically incorrect. But most do not seem to care.
Covenant Theology: The Key of Theology in Reformed Thought and Tradition by Peter Golding
Is it new or was I just late…..I saw it for the first time yesterday.
Lionel, why do you hate the Cowboys so much? I don’t get that bro. You ought to be a Washington Redskins fan the way you hate the Cowboys man lol. Love this post brother, Praise God
GIANTS!!!!!!!
O yes and the most humble team in baseball.
Lets Go Yankeesss!!!!!
Steve,
Hey, what part of the TULIP has a “G” or a “Y”.
T for Texas Rangers
U for U Yankees are not that great
L for Lions who
I for I believe the Cowboys beat the Giants and can beat the Lions.
P for positioning myself for the barage of comments that will come from this post. LOL!!!!!
Steven O
Lionel and other “Reformed” minded brethren,
I’ve looked into the “Reformed” view before but still have problems with certain views. Here are some obvious problems that seem to arise with this understanding of God’s grace. Maybe you or someone else can expound on some of these apparent problems.
Perseverance of the Saints
Is this the same as the teaching of “Once Saved Always Saved”? If so, this would seem to raise some confusion with certain scriptures.
Depravity
You stated:
“Because God has done a gracious work in us, that is, Him sending His Son to secure all who are the elect, we are now to extend God to the world by doing good works!
I also want to focus on our graciousness towards the sinner. We were dead and without hope. And God loved us and showed us the richness of His mercy.”
Why would we be obligated to extend God to the world by doing good works since they are without hope of ever knowing God to begin with?
In others words, what would this accomplish for the sinner who is predestined by God for eternal torment and everlasting spiritual death?
Are we to mock them in the fact that God elected us for good works but elected them to stay dead in sin forever and eventually to be tormented without end?
Election
You stated:
“But we understand that God loved us because of His own divine mercy and the only and I do mean only reason we are saved is due to the extreme grace of God.”
Does this mean that God does not love all or is there a different type of love that God has for all others in the world?
Because scriptures state that God so loved the world that He gave His Son to be believed upon. But the only way that we can believe upon Him is unless He has already elected us. Right?
Jon,
1. Which scriptures? John 5:24, John 3:16, Romans 8:1?
2. I can argue it philisophically. But maybe because it is God’s nature. Jesus washed Judas’ feet, but the Psalms predicted his betrayal before he was ever born.
3. Jon, I love you and I love my wife. Is that love different?
SOwen
The Cowboys beating the Giants at this point in the season is like the Rangers Hitting a Grandslam against the Yankees in the Bottom of the Ninth Inning when the Yankees are ahead 20-0. Kind of insignificant don’t you think
This is a question for all who are not cessationsits.
Do you believe in the gift of Tongues?
Do you believe in the gift of Prophesy?
Please define Both and how they are used in a church service.
How does it work and what is the function and purpose for the gift?
Say I am a new believer. I come into your church. Someone starts speaking in tongues. Then shortly after someone starts speaking in english. The english goes something like this: “Thus says the Lord, Be encouraged my people, for I am with you” etc.
Do you believe that this is biblical and how would you explain it to me if I were a new beleiver
Steve
Steve,
1. Yes
2. Yes
3 The bible defines tounges in Acts 2, Acts 10, Acts 19.
4. Prophecy seems can be either a forthtelling (1 Corinthians 14) or a foretelling (Acts 21).
5. I think that is one way tongues can be manifested. That seems to be what Paul talks about in 1 Corinthians 12, where there is a gift of tongues and there also is a gift of the interpretation of tongues. The other way however, is what it seems like happens in Acts 2 and Acts 10, where the hearers defintely hear these men speaking in their language though they had never learned them before. This drove the men to be broken and open to receive the Gospel from Peter.
I have a prophecy, err prediction to make: The Lions will join the Big 3 the next time they appear before Congress. They need a bailout as well, LOL!!!
Go OAKLAND RAIDERS! COMMITTMENT TO……the worst combined record in the NFL for the past 7 years!
I feel your pain Big L!
Lionel, So you are saying that Someone in a service speaks in a tongue, then someone with the gift of interpretation interprets that message in english and says “thus says the Lord” and gives a message or encouragement or warning from God to the church??
If you are saying that. I have to say Biblically that is wrong.
Steve
Steve,
What is the gift of interpreting tongues then and why is it mentioned in such close proximity to tongues? 1 Corinthians 12?
Steve-
1. Yes
2. Yes
3. The bible defines tongues as the miraculous ability to speak a language that one has never studied. It is important to see the fruit of the miraculous gift of tongues as presented in scripture, it was never used to call attention to oneself and it brought glory to God as people witness the sign and message of the gospel and come to Christ Acts 2:37-47.
Any supposed use of the gift in a public setting that only draws attention to the individual without any fruit such as occurred in Acts 2, should be suspect.
When the congregation meets according to the scriptural pattern set forth in 1 Corinthians 14-2 to 3 may speak in tongues, but only if there is an interpreter present (isn’t it interesting that Paul expected them to know if an interpreter was present? The idea is not that someone would speak in a tongue and then say sorry, nobody can interpret, my bad! The idea is that they would know if there was an interpreter present-so what does that tell us about the gift?) if no interpreter was present they were to be silent.
BTW-I visited Lakewood church when Sr still presided prior to Joel taking over and prior to their meeting in the building formerly know as the Summit, and at Sr’s direction the whole congregation started to supposedly speak in tongues-not a single interpretation followed!
4. Prophecy/prophets same as what Lionel said and again 2-3 teachers/prophets should speak each time the church meets as patterned for us in scripture (not a single mention of a one man pulpit ministry can be found in the Word). If it is a foretelling or an interpreted tongue, it must not contradict scripture and is subject to the scrutiny of the other prophets/teachers.
This is how I see it as far as scripture goes. I have struggled with what I experienced in my church for years and have shared it but most after hearing my explanation according to scripture say “hey that makes sense” but then never go past that and just accept it and say “hey why rock the boat people are being encouraged”.
This is what I see correct me if I am wrong
1 Cor 14: 2-3
2For anyone who speaks in a tongue[a] does not speak to men but to God. Indeed, no one understands him; he utters mysteries with his spirit.[b] 3But everyone who prophesies speaks to men for their strengthening, encouragement and comfort.
According to verse 2: ANYONE who speaks in a going does not speak to men but to God.
Do you agree with that?
According to verse 3: EVERYONE who prophesies speaks to men and not God.
Do you agree with that?
OK so here is my problem.
If speaking in tongues (which we just clarified that ANYONE who does it is speaking to God and NOT SPEAKING TO MEN) is man speaking to God.
Then I ask you. How Can the Intepretation be Thus says the Lord which is God speaking to men???
Now Verse 6 does say
6Now, brothers, if I come to you and speak in tongues, what good will I be to you, unless I bring you some revelation or knowledge or prophecy or word of instruction
But i do not believe Paul was saying that words of instruction or prophesy come through tongues because He just distinguished the two separate gifts in verses 2 and 3 and just said empahtically that if ANYONE speaks in tongues he speaks to God and NOT TO MAN.
In verses 13 through 17 Paul says
13For this reason anyone who speaks in a tongue should pray that he may interpret what he says. 14For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays, but my mind is unfruitful. 15So what shall I do? I will pray with my spirit, but I will also pray with my mind; I will sing with my spirit, but I will also sing with my mind. 16If you are praising God with your spirit, how can one who finds himself among those who do not understand[e] say “Amen” to your thanksgiving, since he does not know what you are saying? 17You may be giving thanks well enough, but the other man is not edified.
Look at the language. He associates speaking in tongues with Prayer, Singing, Praising. All directed AT and TOWARDS GOD not man.
Then he says this. HOW CAN THEY SAY AMEN TO YOUR THANKSGIVING. He did not say how can they say amen to your message to them. Thanksgiving is directed towards God.
Then in verse 17 he says “you may be GIVING THANKS well enough, but the other man is not edified”.
On the day of Pentecost what did the people who heard the 120 in the upper room say about them speaking in tongues?
“Are not all these who are speaking(J) Galileans? 8And how is it that we hear, each of us in his own native language? 9Parthians and(K) Medes and(L) Elamites and residents of Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, 10Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts of Libya belonging to Cyrene, and visitors from Rome, 11both Jews and(M) proselytes, Cretans and Arabians—we hear them telling in our own tongues the mighty works of God.”
They were declaring the Mighty Works of God Praising God for his MIghty Works.
Therefore I believe that due to lack of correct teaching what is really going on is 2 different distinct gifts that are in use but have nothing to do with each other. The person who spoke in Tongues should not speak unless there is an interpreter. And if someone does interpret it should coincide with what is being said.
If tongues is speaking to God, Singing to God, Praising God, Declaring God’s Mighty Works then the interpretation should be fitting. It go something like this “God you are awesome, we bless you, your name is Great” etc.. But if someone says Thus says the Lord and gives a message to the church that has nothing to do with the gift of tongues. In fact I ask you doesn’t God always speak to the people so they can understand Him? He does not hide his word and we are dependent upon a translator to hear it. God Speaks clearly. Not I struggle also with Thus Says the Lord. It can be very dangerous. God is not speaking new scritpure but can give encouragement and direction in personal matters that i believe.
So My argument is that the church needs to be taught the proper use of tongues and prophesy which have nothing to do with each other.
that is my story and I am sticking to it.
Steve
HUTCH
That is exactly what I always say as well. IF the bible says there must be an interpreter then somehow they must have known if one was present otherwise dont do it.
Steve-
Yes, as mentioned I said “in a public setting”.
Many classic Pentecostal and Independent Charismatic traditions teach that the gift of the Holy Spirit spoke of in the 1 Corinthians passage is the gift of tongues, but Paul tells us that although he did very much speak in tongues himself but that not all speak in tongues.
Some do, some do not. Most of what I have seen is unbiblical and disobedient.
As you mentioned tongues are not an illegitimate gift, but that prophecy/teaching is a superior gift.
The idea is that (God gave pastors/elders and teachers/prophets as gifts to the church to equip the church for the work on the ministry) the teachers /prophets and elders gently pass judgment upon the teaching, interpretation of tongues and foretelling that happens in a public meeting in order to determine if it was a sound biblical exhortation.
Any foretelling and interpreted tongue exhortation in my opinion that I believe is biblically based would go hand in hand with the operation of the spiritual gifts of “words of knowledge” and “wisdom” as wisdom is knowledge skillfully applied to a circumstance.
For instance if a “prophet” was to stand up and teach and then gave a foretelling exhortation for the congregation saying “I believe God wants our family of believers to really start to focus on loving one another in a literal and practical way”, that would pass muster.
If he said, “God told me that we should all sell your homes and other possessions and move to South America and drink some tasty cool-aid” he would be corrected by the elders and other teachers/prophets and not allowed to speak.
Lionel,
1) No. Rom 11:21-23, Heb 10:35; 6:4-8, Rev 2:5; 3:5 & 16
2) How is this “Good News” to the nonelect?
Take this scenario:
“Reformed Christian” sharing the Gospel (Good News) to an unbeliever.
“Excuse me, did you know that Jesus loves you? He loved you so much that He came on Earth and paid the price for your sins by dying on a cross and by believing in Him you can be saved and have everlasting life. There’s only one catch. You cannot believe in Him on your own. You must be one of the lucky few (maybe ess than 25% of the world’s population) that He has already selected. So if you by chance are not one of the elect. My good news (gospel) to you is that God has created you to live in some agony on Earth and stay stuck in your sins and then die. Finally after you die, you will then be set on fire and literally burned and remain in this unimaginable pain and agony forever. So you probably stand less than a 25% chance of being one of the chosen. And like I said before, if you are not one of the elect you have absolutely no hope of escaping this most horrific judgment. Good luck. And remember, Jesus loves you and so do I!
By the way. You may not want to have anymore kids, because it’s probably a greater than 75% chance that they will suffer this same torment forever too. Again, best of luck to you and your family.”
What kind of image are you projecting of our all loving, all powerful, merciful God with this kind of doctrine?
3) How can you compare that with God’s love for His creation? It would seem to be more like a parents love for their children.
4) What about children, babies, aborted fetuses, and the mentally challenged? Are they automatically elected? Or will most of them burn in hell eternally too? And if you believe in some type of age of accountability, wouldn’t the abortionist be showing great love by not allowing fetuses to be born in the first place? For they could be responsible for stopping billions of people from suffering this most terrifying eternal fate.
Jon,
What does the bible mean when it says: explain these verses in light of your theology:
Jude 7 Just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them, since they in the same way as these indulged in gross immorality and went after strange flesh, are exhibited as an example, in undergoing the punishment of eternal fire.
Luke 16:23 And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.
Matt. 5:22 “But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother shall be guilty before the court; and whoever shall say to his brother, ‘Raca,’ shall be guilty before the supreme court; and whoever shall say, ‘You fool,’ shall be guilty enough to go into the fiery hell.
Mark 9:43 “And if your hand causes you to stumble, cut it off; it is better for you to enter life crippled, than having your two hands, to go into hell, into the unquenchable fire,
Matt. 10:28 “And do not fear those who kill the body, but are unable to kill the soul; but rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.
2Pet. 2:4 For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but cast them into hell and committed them to pits of darkness, reserved for judgment;
Rev. 20:15 And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.
Rev. 20:10 And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever.
For the record, I believe that everyone is capable of coming to God, and that God died for EVERYONE, not just a select group of people.
If someone doesn’t come to God, and winds up in a Christless eternity after death, then it is their own fault. How can we blame the person whom God didn’t die for, for turning their back on God, seeing as how God never meant for them to be saved anyway-according to this haughty and elitist biblical doctrine?
No, God gives every human being a chance at salvation, especially if they’re seeking after God-God will in no way cast them out.
Seeker,
Let me ask you. The day you started to seek after the Lord why weren’t you seeking Him the day before? What changed from that Monday to that Tuesday, that all of sudden the God that was repulsive to you became attractive?
My next question is why do you believe that those who honestly seek after God (or at least they think) don’t seek after your God? For example the very spiritual person, who is loving, kind, patient, will give you the shirt off of her back, but for some reason she doesn’t believe in your Christ, though she isn’t rude about it, she just thinks that is good for you. She has embraced Islam? Is it because she is just a wicked individual who hates God? What drives her to embrace Islam and you Christianity?
Steve,
1) Jude 7 – “are exhibited as an example, in undergoing the punishment of eternal fire.”
This fire went out a long time ago.
2) Luke 16:23 – “and Lazarus in his bosom.”
So if you are to take this PARABLE LITERALLY then you must also believe in a literal Abraham’s bosom.
3) Matt 5:22 – “whoever shall say, ‘You fool,’ shall be guilty enough to go into the fiery hell.”
Just because someone says ‘you fool’ there punishment is eternal torment in fire. Wow! That’s true love, mercy, and justice!
4) Mark 9:43 – “And if your hand causes you to stumble, cut it off”
Since you seem to take this figurative speech in this verse as literal, why don’t you literally cut off the parts of your body that causes you to stumble. Having a lust/sexual problem? Cut it off!!!
5) Matt 10:28 – “able to destroy both soul and body in hell.”
Understanding the use and meaning of destruction in biblical passages is key to understanding this troublesome verse.
6) 2Pet. 2:4 – “but cast them into hell and committed them to pits of darkness, reserved for judgment”
This is not the same punishment that humans will go through. The greek word that was mistranslated hell, in some bible translations, is the word tartarus and is only found in this particular verse which is in refrence to rebellious angelic beings.
7) Rev. 20:15
More figurative speech that you seem to want to take as literal. If this is a literal lake, how then is hell and death thrown into it? Revelations is filled with symbolic speech. Be careful in trying to base a theology off of these few symbolic references to the lake of fire in Revelations.
How can this be when days and nights will cease. There is an obvious translation problem with certain bible translations that render this verse to read for ever and ever. BTW: Isn’t one ever enough. Why even add another ever. This is a bad translation of the original greek. Consider Young’s Literal Translation – “they shall be tormented day and night — to the ages of the ages.”
Everyone,
Going forward Jon will be ignored. No matter what verses you give him, he will find away around it. Jon, I will ask that you please find another blog to teach universalism. We can debate a bunch of things, this will not be one. Going forward I will delete any future posts by you. I am also sorry if this offends you but I am convinced that you are only hear to draw disciples after yourself.
-Seeker,
*Yeah what’s up?
-Let me ask you.
*Okay.
-The day you started to seek after the Lord why weren’t you seeking Him the day before?
*Because I wasn’t ready, and?
-What changed from that Monday to that Tuesday, that all of sudden the God that was repulsive to you became attractive?
*Who said that God would’ve been repulsive to me on Monday, whereby he became attractive on Tuesday? Why couldn’t God have been attractive to me for a very long time, but I just so happened to choose him on a Tuesday?
-My next question is why do you believe that those who honestly seek after God (or at least they think) don’t seek after your God?
*Simply because this world is full of deception, and false doctrine, to where God has mandated that christians go out and reach the lost with the gospel. If they are presented with the truth, and don’t esteem the truth, then it is they who loved the works of darkness more than the light that was offered them, therefore they are responsible for sealing their own fate.
- For example the very spiritual person, who is loving, kind, patient, will give you the shirt off of her back, but for some reason she doesn’t believe in your Christ, though she isn’t rude about it, she just thinks that is good for you.
*If you’re asking me why she doesn’t come to Christ, well, it’s because she’s a sinner, born into sin, whose heart is darkened to the true light of Christ. Hence she makes a choice not to come to God, all on her own.
-She has embraced Islam? Is it because she is just a wicked individual who hates God? What drives her to embrace Islam and you Christianity?
*What drives me to embrace Christianity, and not Islam, isn’t because I am better, or greater than the one who accepted Islam, whether, I decided to yield to the illumination of the Holy Spirit, whereas the person who is good, and seeking after God, chose Islam as their route.
You see, again, me choosing Christ, doesn’t make me more spiritually aware, honest, gracious, loving, kind, or wiser, rather, it shows a man who yielded to the urging of the Holy Spirit, whereby my own free will dictated that I accept the unction, and get saved.
So to ask me, a christian, why they chose God, and why someone else didn’t, is an unfair question designed by your side to ensnare folks, because then those folks will have to give a justification, or an account on why others choose the way they choose, as oppose to focusing on why they themselves choose, and how they can spread the message with the hopes that others may choose.
Lastly, the reason why so many hardcore Calvinists appear to be dry, show no love, and appear rather cold, is because the foundational premise of their belief system is rooted in them belonging to a “special elite” class of folks who are saved, whereas the other folks who aren’t saved, and outside of God’s grand “plan” for salvation-ARE LESS THAN THEY ARE.
Oh true, they will deny this, and try to convince themselves that they don’t feel this way, but in the end, they can’t help but to express themselves the way many of them do, because subconsciously, the presentation that you see outwardly, is how they are inwardly.
It’s like this one Pentecostal church I attended as a teenager, where they taught that everyone, but their denomination, is going to hell. Now mind you, this was an Arminian congregation, full of Arminian beliefs through and through, but yet many of the long established members were very cold, lifeless, and dry as sawdust.
So what’s the comparison between the two extremes? Well the comparison lies in the fact that one side believes that only a select few are saved, which is a belief that subconsciously (or consciously) leads them to believe that they are “better than thine,” because God chose them, whereas the other side feels that God must really love them, because he blessed them to be in a denomination, whose teachings are the only sure shot to heaven in the after life.
It’s like with these two groups, the members who are the way I described, have to occasionally remind themselves that they have to be Christ like, to where their displays of Christian like behavior appears to be forced, and not natural.
Seeker we are going to have a nice discussion going here. So lets start! LOL!!!
1. Was he attractive and lovely and you just decided like Hosea’s wife to go play the prostitute? You looked at Jesus and said “you are everything I want, I just don’t want you”? Hmmm…..
2. So what do you do with those who have never heard? Since all they need is the Gospel presented to them.
3. How can person with a darkened due to being born into sin, undarken their heart. You just wake up one morning and say “heart, I no longer want you to be dark, so be light, so I can accept the Gopsel”? That simple hungh? What does Paul mean when he says:
“And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled only to those who are perishing. 4 In their case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.”
How exactly are the unblind their eyes so they can see the “gospel of the glory of Christ”. Satan blinds them what do have to do to stop Satan from keeping them blind?
4. So you believe the Holy Spirit urges everyone? Again what of the person that never hears? The Holy Spirit urges him/her towards what? So in the case of the woman who rejects the Gospel this is what she must have said “self, you hear the Holy Spirit urging you to embrace the Gospel, but self because you are wicked and enjoy wickedness I am going to reject the unction of the Spirit of the true and living God and embrace Islam though Christianity makes all the sense in the world and I have this Holy Spirit convincing me of it”?
Your last paragraph doesn’t make any sense Seeker. I am not being funny but can you explain what you mean?
Seeker,
Thank God that neither of us our in the extremes!
Jon,
I only have two words for you.
false teacher.
Steve
Lionel, cant you just block him from posting?
Lionel, (please post this final post)
No it doesn’t offend me. I simply responded to the question that was asked of me. Or maybe this statement by Steve applies to you and this blog.
Steve stated:
“1 So I BELITTLE the elders among you, as a YES MEN and a witness of the YOUR GOD APPOINTED AUTHORITY THAT NOBODY DARES QUESTION,”
You on the other hand, seem to avoid problamatic questions about your current theology. No matter what verses I give you, you will find away around it or better yet avoid the troublesome scriptures to begin with.
Seeker:
*If you’re asking me why she doesn’t come to Christ, well, it’s because she’s a sinner, born into sin, whose heart is darkened to the true light of Christ. Hence she makes a choice not to come to God, all on her own.
you just answered your own argument. How can a sinner who is DEAD IN SIN and who’s heart is darkened and Blinded from the True light of Christ make a descision to come to Christ when she is Dead/Darkened/Blind?
Go preach to people in the cemetary. Do you expect a response? No. Why? They are dead.
Ezekiel preached to a valley of DRY bones and how did those bones come back to life? Did they say to themselves, hey this guy sounds good, that is a good message, I believe that? No. they were DRY bones no life. God by His Spirit brought them back to life as Ezekiel prophesied or preached to them.
The Gospel is the message that God choose to use to bring Life to the dead. The Spirit is the one who Regenrates so that they are able to Hear/See/Respond. Since they are Dead they cannot do that unless FIRST the Spirit regenerates.
You Say Calvinists are cold and hard. But it seems to me that most of the heresy comes out of Arminian circles as opposed to Calvinist Circles.
I agree Calvanists are useless when it comes to evangelism:
Just look at their History
Martin Luther/Calvin/Zwingli – The Reformation (Millions come to faith in Christ)
The First Great Awakening – Whitefield/Edwards (1st Revival in USA – hudreds of thousands come to Christ).
The Wesh Revival – Strong Calvinistic Theology behind this Revival.
NYC Praye Revival (hunders of thousands come to Christ) 1800’s started and led by Jeremiah Lamphier – A Dutch Reformed Leader (calvinist)
William Carey – Father of Modern Missions Started a whole chain reaction of missionaries going out to the heathen. O Yeah He was a Calvinist as well.
Charles Spurgeon – The Prince of Preachers (was used by God to bring thousands to Christ). Another cold hard Calvinist.
Dr. Dean James Kennedy passed away about 2 years ago- Started Evangelism Explotion – thousands came to Christ.
I could go on if you would like. I could backtrack and add dozens of more men who preached the gospel with passion.
I am an ex arminian. But one thing I know. When I preach the Gospel ONLY the elect will hear and beleive.
I do not know who they are so I preach to everyone as if they were. God is the one who calls and saves. I have the confidence that as I preach there will be Elect and they will be saved.
Your theology says: Jesus did not pay the price for anyone’s sin. But only made it possible for them if they feel like it to accept and be saved. You Promote a Universal Salvation that does not guarantee anyones salvation because even if you say yes, you might say no tomorrow and walk away.
We preach that Jesus died for the Elect only. And Paid for thier sin. Penal Substitution. He secured their salvation for all eternity. When we get to Heaven we will fall down and sing the old song “JESUS PAID IT ALL, ALL TO HIM I OWE”.
The arminian theme song would go somthing like this “I DID IT, I MADE IT, I HAD THE WISDOM ENOUGH TO SAY YES!!
You are deny Scripture.
Here is what you do. Take a pair of scissors. Take 2 bibles. In one bible cut out every verse that has tje words Predestination/Election/Elect.
Then in the other bible cut out every verse that has the word FREE WILL.
Then give me a call.
Steve
Seeker
I wrote this post on my blog maybe it will help you.
Forced by the Father
John 6:44 ” No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day.”
(Before you continue reading this please watch the short video to the right under the Reformed Video Gallery called “God is not a Rapist” by Mark Driscoll)
Jesus spoke these words to the Jews who began to grumble about his previous statement that he was the bread of life that came down from heaven. They could not accept his words or his testimony regarding who he was and what he came to do so they began to complain and grumble. Jesus responded with a very powerful statement that revealed as to why they did not believe him. He said “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws them”. In other words, nobody can believe in who I am or what I am saying unless it is granted by my father. (John 6:6 “For this reason I have said to you, that no one can come to Me, unless it has been granted him from the Father.” )
God first has to do a work in the heart of a person before that person can respond to Jesus and his words.
Jesus said “unless the Father who sent me draws them”. The word that sticks out and demands a closer look is the word “draws”. It does not mean “woo” as to try to persuade, coax, win, or sweet-talk someone into making a favorable decision.
The word “draws” in Greek is defined in Strong’s as :
1670 ἑλκύω [helkuo, helko /helï¾·kooï¾·o/] v. Probably akin to 138; TDNT 2:503; TDNTA 227; GK 1816; Eight occurrences; AVtranslates as “draw” eight times. 1 to draw, drag off. 2 metaph., to draw by inward power, lead, impel.
Also the Analytical Lexicon of the Greek New Testament defines “draws” as :
ἕλκω impf. εἷλκον; the future (ἑλκύσω) and first aorist (εἵλκυσα) are formed as
if from ἑλκύω; tug, draw, drag; literally;
(1) of a sword draw, unsheath (JN 18.10);
(2) of a person, forcibly led drag (AC 21.30);
(3) of a net haul, drag (JN 21.6);
(4) as a legal technical term lead by force, drag into court (JA 2.6); figuratively, of
a strong pull in the mental or moral life draw, attract (JN 6.44)
What Jesus was really saying in this passage is that unless the Father imposes his sovereign will upon unwilling subjects they will never come to Jesus. Why would Jesus use a such a word as “draws” that implies force?
The scriptures make it clear in Romans 3:10-12 that nobody seeks after God:
“None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God. All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one.”
And also in Romans 8:7:
“For the mind that is set on the flesh (sinful nature) is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God’s law; indeed, it cannot.”
Sinful man in his fallen state does not even want seek after God, in fact he is hostile towards God. Paul says that he “cannot” submit to God. It is impossible for him to do so.
In Ezekiel 36:26-27 the prophet states:
“And i will give you a new heart, and a new spirit I will put within you. And I will remove your heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. And I will put my Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes and be careful to obey my rules.”
God said that he would “cause” you to walk in his statutes. Again Strong’s Defines the word “cause” as:
6213 עָשָׂה, עָשָׂה [`asah /awï¾·saw/] v. A primitive root; TWOT 1708, 1709; GK 6913 and 6914; 2633 occurrences; AV translates as “do” 1333 times, “make” 653 times, “wrought” 52 times, “deal” 52 times, “commit” 49 times, “offer” 49 times, “execute” 48 times, “keep” 48 times, “shew” 43 times, “prepare” 37 times, “work” 29 times, “do so” 21 times, “perform” 18 times, etc.
Unless God is the one that “causes” us, and “drags” us, we on our own initiative will never come to Christ and as Paul state we “cannot even do so”. The fact is that God does forcibly drag people to Christ, but not screaming and kicking, but by changing their will and desire without their consent. To the modern day “me” centered culture this sounds absurd. After all, how many times have we heard this phrase when defining God’s sovereignty over human beings. “God is Sovereign, but He is also a gentlemen and he will not force His will upon anyone” But as we have just seen in scripture this is not true. If it were true then why do we pray for those who are opposed to God? If God will not force His will upon them then we pray for them, why preach to them?
In 2 Timothy 2:24-26 Paul instructs Timothy, “And the Lord’s servant must not be quarrelsome but kind to everyone, able to teach, patiently enduring evil, correcting his opponents with gentleness. God may perhaps grant them repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth, and they may come to their senses and escape from the snare of the devil, after being captured by him to do his will.”
Paul is describing someone who is captured by the will of satan. This is not referring to a believer but an opponent of truth. They are a slave to the devil’s will and have no power in themselves to escape. Paul tells Timothy to avoid quarreling and to correct with gentleness those who are held captive, that God may perhaps grant them repentance leading them to the knowledge of the truth, and thereby coming to their senses and escape the snare of the devil. Does that mean every person in whom we preach to or pray for will be saved? Paul uses language such as: “perhaps” and “grant” when speaking of repentance.
Strong’s defines “perhaps” as:
3379 μήποτε [mepote, me, pote /mayï¾·potï¾·eh/] conj. From 3361 and 4218; GK 3607; 25 occurrences; AV translates as “lest” 12 times, “lest at any time” seven times, “whether or not” once, “lest haply + 2443” once, “if peradventure” once, “no … not at all” once, and not translated once. 1 that … not, lest, whether perhaps, whether or not, in no way, perhaps.
Strong’s defines “grant” as:
1325 διδῶ, δίδωμι [didomi /didï¾·oï¾·mee/] v. A prolonged form of a primary verb (which is used as an altern. in most of the tenses); TDNT 2:166; TDNTA 166; GK 1442 and 1443; 413 occurrences; AV translates as “give” 365 times, “grant” 10 times, “put” five times, “show” four times, “deliver” twice, “make” twice, and translated miscellaneously 25 times.
In no way does this verse imply that God will “definitely” grant this person repentance, on the contrary, it implies that maybe he will or maybe he will not. Also, what is implied here is that the person is a slave, a captive that cannot free himself from the will of the devil, and unless God is the one who initiates and grants repentance this person will remain a captive. So the question that must be asked is why then would God choose “NOT” do deliver such a person? If it is God’s will that all be saved and all come to repentance as some claim 2 Peter 3:9 states (see post regarding this verse at the bottom or watch video 2 Peter 3:9 to the right), why would Paul use such words as “perhaps”? We cannot proclaim as some do that there is an irreconcilable paradox regarding these two verses. One claims God’s will is that “ALL” come to repentance and the other that “PERHAPS” God will even think about granting him repentance.
If you hold to the Arminian view of free will then your only choice is to say that these verses contradict each other. But if you believe the truth of God’s Word as proclaimed throughout the Doctrines of Grace (Calvinism) then the only answer that the bible gives us is this: “I will show mercy to whom he will show mercy and harden whom he will harden.” Romans 9:18 .
We cannot have it both ways. We cannot procliam God’s Sovereignty and man’s free will.
Another question regarding this verse that warrants our attention is the fact that this person was held captive against his own will and subject to the devil’s will. If this person had a “free will” as some claim, the same free will that was able to reject Christ, then why didn’t this person exercise that free will to reject the devil? Why didn’t they simply release themselves from the devil’s snare? If you claim as some say that God cannot impose his will upon man, but the devil can, aren’t you attributing to the devil the sovereignty that belongs to God alone? Aren’t you making satan out to be more powerful then God Almighty?
The truth is that man is enslaved by his sinful nature and is a slave to the will of the devil. Since he is a slave of the flesh and the devil then in reality he is not free to choose at all. Every action is dictated by either the flesh or the devil. Unless God Himself “drags” or “imposes His will” upon man, as Jesus rightly claimed, he can NEVER come to Christ.
John 6:44 ” No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day.”
Jon-
Man I just spewed my coca cola out of my nose and all over my monitor and keyboard after reading what you just wrote.
Lionel avoiding problematic questions is like saying Luther had an objective opinion about the Anabaptists.
Your quest for the answers regarding what you call troublesome scriptures has been answered in depth all over this bog.
Nobody has ignored you, in fact the opposite is what is true, many have patiently shown you the scriptural answers to your questions in order to help you leave behind you false teaching.
Again, you are the one who has the problem with what God has presented in His Word; you are he one who is arguing against your maker.
I think you also missed the point of me asking about when your congregation met, I was trying to gently point out to you that you are simply calling yourself a pastor/shepherd on your website, when in fact you are not operating as a pastor. One is not a pastor because he calls himself a pastor, one is not a shepherd because he went to seminary or bible college, one is a shepherd when he is recognized by a congregation as one who sacrificially leads and shepherds the flock by his loving example as his reasonable act of worship and not for pay.
I am actually quite relieved that you are only masquerading as a pastor/shepherd when in actuality your website is not a church website but it is just a propaganda piece for your deception.
I hope and pray that God will grant you repentance unto salvation.
To Lionel:
-Seeker we are going to have a nice discussion going here. So lets start! LOL!!!
*I’m game…
-Was he attractive and lovely and you just decided like Hosea’s wife to go play the prostitute? You looked at Jesus and said “you are everything I want, I just don’t want you”? Hmmm…..
*Remember when you said at the bottom:
“Your last paragraph doesn’t make any sense Seeker. I am not being funny but can you explain what you mean?”
Well, this is how I feel about this undignified question, which will make me an undignified man if I answered it. Stop trying to be cute.
Or better yet, don’t think of me as a fool, or a simpleton, for if you do-you’ve discerned wrongly.
Serious, go look at this question, and tell me that it was asked properly.
-So what do you do with those who have never heard? Since all they need is the Gospel presented to them.
*Luckily it is not up to me judge whether or not folks will be sent to hell, for the scriptures teach that every man receives evidence that God does indeed exist, just by the creation, to where if their hearts were sincere in finding the true God, God will make a way for a believer to find them and impart the gospel message.
Furthermore, if no one has heard, that is partly our fault, due our not properly heeding the great commission, where Jesus said in
Matthew 28: 19-20:
“19Go ye therefore, and Teach All Nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
20Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you…”
In Mark 16: 15-16, Jesus says:
“15And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.
16He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be
damned.”
In this verse of Mark’s, it says that those that believe will be saved, but those that do not respond to the gospel being preached to them “shall be damned.”
So what’s my point? Well, my point is-instead of worrying about folks who’ve never heard the gospel, go out and make sure, with a since of urgency, that these folks will hear the gospel preached to them.
- How can person with a darkened due to being born into sin, undarken their heart. You just wake up one morning and say “heart, I no longer want you to be dark, so be light, so I can accept the Gopsel”?
*No, what it is, is that the Holy Spirit draws human beings in, not human beings themselves. That’s the mistake that those on your side of the aisle constantly make. You outright teach a falsehood by saying that folks on my side of the aisle, who believe in unlimited atonement, are endlessly declaring that folks who become saved, are saved because they are good, or because they themselves just up and decided to come to God, without God having a hand in the process. Which is false.
Are you still having fun?
-That simple hungh?
*Well, yeah? God does use the simple things of this world to confound the wise.
-What does Paul mean when he says:
“And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled only to those who are perishing. 4 In their case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.”
*Okay, and?
-How exactly are the unblind their eyes so they can see the “gospel of the glory of Christ”. Satan blinds them what do have to do to stop Satan from keeping them blind?
*In proper biblical hermeneutics, one must interpret scripture, in light of other scripture, less there appear to be contradictions and discrepancies. All of us were blinded by Satan, as unbelievers, before we accepted the unction/drawing in of the Holy Spirit, that led us towards salvation. Those that were drawn, but did not respond, are the folks Paul has to be talking about, because in other scripture, this is what Paul says:
2 Corinthians 5:14-15:
“For Christ’s love compels us, because we are convinced that one died for ALL, and therefore ALL died. And he died for ALL, that those who live should no longer live for themselves but for him who died for them and was raised again.”
(I reject that this “all” refers only to the elect, because the context of this passage doesn’t dictate such an interpretation.)
Or
1 Timothy 2:5-6:
“For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for ALL men–the testimony given in its proper time.”
Again, you interpret the above verse you quoted from Paul, in light of other verses, so that you can avoid a pretext, which is a result of taking scripture out of context.
And let’s not forget this one from the book of
Acts:
Acts 2:21:
“And EVERYONE who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.”
Here the speaker isn’t referring to only a select elitist few who are “special,” rather to total humanity.
-So you believe the Holy Spirit urges everyone?
*Well, that’s quite obvious.
- Again what of the person that never hears? The Holy Spirit urges him/her towards what?
*You didn’t think I’d answer the question by the time I got down to this section of your piece? Remember, repeating a question, doesn’t mean that the question wasn’t answered, neither does it mean that a point is being scored.
All it means is that there’s probably a lack of understanding, or someone is trying to drive home how incredulous they think a particular position is. I will be gracious, and say that it’s the latter. And even if it is, it doesn’t make your position right, nor mine-WRONG.
-So in the case of the woman who rejects the Gospel this is what she must have said “self, you hear the Holy Spirit urging you to embrace the Gospel, but self because you are wicked and enjoy wickedness I am going to reject the unction of the Spirit of the true and living God and embrace Islam though Christianity makes all the sense in the world and I have this Holy Spirit convincing me of it”?
*Uh yeah my brother. Remember, human beings are depraved, right? Folks didn’t totally reject the savior when he walked the earth, because all of them believed he was a charlatan and a kook, and not who he claimed to be. There were those, even amongst the religious leaders, who rejected Christ, DESPITE the evidence that he was the messiah.
Likewise, you will have those folks who will reject the one true God, even though he may attempt to draw them in, by way of the gospel, whereas, well-YOU WILL HAVE THOSE WHO WILL ACCEPT.
I don’t have to answer in a complete, dissecting and surgical way, why one accepted, and the other did not, for in the end, I’m not God, nor do I have to make judgments on who’s going to heaven or hell, nor read people’s minds. All I know is that after much consideration, I chose to come to God, by yielding to the Holy Spirit, whereas others had the same opportunity, but CHOSE another path.
Why-because as human beings, we all have free will, to where if we land in a Christless eternity, we can’t blame no one but ourselves.
-Your last paragraph doesn’t make any sense Seeker. I am not being funny but can you explain what you mean?
*My last paragraph does make sense. Lastly, you are partly trying to be funny…
I’m sorry Steven, but I’m not reading all of what you posted, not because it isn’t sound, or brilliant, but because I’ve read that post before on another website (I think), and already know the arguments, and I still don’t believe much of it.
No offense to the piece written, I’d just prefer you respond to the points I make, with me offering rebuttals and counterpoints; and vice-versa.
Trust me, I have answers to your questions, so let’s dialogue, as oppose to throwing a whole post at me, and telling me to read it, as if that’s the end of the matter.
No, let’s discuss it.
Steve says:
“Here is what you do. Take a pair of scissors. Take 2 bibles. In one bible cut out every verse that has tje words Predestination/Election/Elect.
Then in the other bible cut out every verse that has the word FREE WILL.
Then give me a call.”
My response:
I’ll do that, as soon as you can find the word “trinity” in the bible…
To seeker
Ok so I am waiting for your answer.
If None can come to Jesus unless the Father Draws him then how can someone have free will to do it on thier own?
If Man has free will as you claim. Why does he not exercise his free will and loosen himeself from the grip of satan and sin?
Show me ONE verse that says man has Free Will.
Seeker:
Trinity?
We are not discussing the trinity so stop trying to side step the issue and answer the question.
SO then take every instance were it suggests that MAN HAS FREE WILL and do the same.
I can do that with the Trinity
Seeker. Does ALL always mean ALL? God so loved the WORLD does that mean EVERYONE?
John 3:16
15 that whoever believes in him may have eternal life.
16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.
The word whoever is pas in Greek. Below is a breakdown of how many different ways this word could possibly be translated into English.
3956 πᾶς [pas /pas/] adj. Including all the forms of declension; TDNT 5:886; TDNTA 795; GK 4246; 1243 occurrences;
AV translates as “all” 748 times, “all things” 170 times, “every” 117 times, “all men” 41 times, “whosoever” 31 times, “everyone” 28 times, “whole” 12 times, “all manner of” 11 times, “every man” 11 times, “no + 3756” nine times, “every thing” seven times, “any” seven times, “whatsoever” six times, “whosoever + 3739 + 302” three times, “always + 1223” three times, “daily + 2250” twice, “any thing” twice, “no + 3361” twice, not translated seven times, and translated miscellaneously 26 times.
1 individually. 1a each, every, any, all, the whole, everyone, all things, everything.
2 collectively. 2a some of all types.
Additional Information: … “the whole world has gone after him” Did all the world go after Christ? “then went all Judea, and were baptized of him in Jordan.” Was all Judea, or all Jerusalem, baptized in Jordan? “Ye are of God, little children”, and the whole world lieth in the wicked one”. Does the whole world there mean everybody? The words “world” and “all” are used in some seven or eight senses in Scripture, and it is very rarely the “all” means all persons, taken individually. The words are generally used to signify that Christ has redeemed some of all sorts—some Jews, some Gentiles, some rich, some poor, and has not restricted His redemption to either Jew or Gentile …—C.H. Spurgeon from a sermon on Particular Redemption.
So is this verse saying that Jesus died for “all” every single human being that would ever exist on the face of the earth? Could it possible mean that he died for “some of all types” of peoples on the face of the earth? Remember Jesus was speaking to Nicodemus a Jewish Rabbi who believed that Salvation was for the Jews only. How many times did the crowds go off when either Jesus or Paul suggested that God considered the Gentile nations as equal with the Jews. This verse is speaking of Universal Salvation but not for “every single person” but for “every single nation” People of every tongue, tribe, and nation will be saved.
Steve said:
“Seeker:
Trinity?
We are not discussing the trinity so stop trying to side step the issue and answer the question.”
My response:
I may be side stepping, but the point I bring up is relevant to this discussion, especially in the light of the question you’re asking.
Seeker:
Acts 13:48
And when the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord, and as many as were appointed to eternal life believed.
Who believed? Those who were APPOINTED to eternal Life.
We can go verse for verse but I doubt that will get anyone anywhere.
You are looking for a fight to defend your view. I am not on here do defend Calvinism since this is a reformed blog. I was an Arminian for 20 years. Just embrace Reformed 4 months ago. I used all the scriptures you did to PROVE MY POSITION but NEVER read one Reformed Book, Commentary. Never tried to really see what the reformed teachings really said. When I finally did I realized it was the true word of God.
So I will not dialogue with you any longer. If you really want to know why we believe what we do and are open to hear truth so you can really understand that is a different story. But to go back and forth is kind of futile, don’t you think.
God Bless my arminian brother
Peace!!!
Steve said:
“SO then take every instance were it suggests that MAN HAS FREE WILL and do the same.
I can do that with the Trinity”
My response:
No you can’t, because the word “trinity” is not found in scripture…
I’ll answer your other post in 15 to 30 minutes. Right now I have some business to tend to.
Your Mistaken My brother TRINITY IS IN MY BIBLE I WROTE IT IN THE FOOTNOTE
I never said Trinity was in the bible
I said I can go through and find every reference to the TRINITY.
Read correctly before you respond.
But it is ok I am done like I said.
Peace. I will not respond anymore. I don’t need to prove my point. It is the correct one anyway
Seeker,
You are right. I was going to post a response but it would be futile as you said “I already know the arugement” and “I still don’t believe much of it”. This is one of those agree to disagree posts.
I will say if you accuse me of hermeneutic fallacy your use of 2 Corinthians “all” would lead you to be a universalists. Because “all” Christ died for “all” died and now they are to “all” live for Him. Right? The use of the word all works in your disfavor. Just be careful of using that verse with others who hold my position they will eat you up with that one.
-Seeker. Does ALL always mean ALL? God so loved the WORLD does that mean EVERYONE?
*Yes it does…
-This is the scripture Steven quoted:
John 3:16
15 that whoever believes in him may have eternal life.
16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.
Now, this is his breakdown of the scripture that was quoted:
-The word whoever is pas in Greek.
*I know this…
-Below is a breakdown of how many different ways this word could possibly be translated into English.
*Okay?
-3956 πᾶς [pas /pas/] adj. Including all the forms of declension; TDNT 5:886; TDNTA 795; GK 4246; 1243 occurrences;
AV translates as “all” 748 times, “all things” 170 times, “every” 117 times, “all men” 41 times, “whosoever” 31 times, “everyone” 28 times, “whole” 12 times, “all manner of” 11 times, “every man” 11 times, “no + 3756” nine times, “every thing” seven times, “any” seven times, “whatsoever” six times, “whosoever + 3739 + 302” three times, “always + 1223” three times, “daily + 2250” twice, “any thing” twice, “no + 3361” twice, not translated seven times, and translated miscellaneously 26 times.
1 individually. 1a each, every, any, all, the whole, everyone, all things, everything.
2 collectively. 2a some of all types.
*And? How does this augment your position? Let’s take the “some of all types” aspect of the definition-IT STILL DOESN’T CONTEXTUALLY STATE IN JOHN 3:16 THAT ONLY A FEW TARGETED ONES WILL BE SAVED, AND THAT SALVATION ISN’T OPENED TO EVERYONE.
And before folks stress that Jesus intentionally died for a specific number only, and not everyone, and that my position is logically fallacious, in light of supposed illuminating evidence, just look at it as someone in a park, full of homeless folk, who haven’t ate in 3 days. Well, let’s say that someone, in this park, amidst all of these homeless folks, decided to prepare a meal for these famished homeless folks.
Now, let’s say that this someone is familiar with every homeless person in the park, in regards to their disposition, demeanor, and general personality, to where he has the foresight, and discernment, to know those who will come to eat, as oppose to those who will not come to eat, because of whatever reason, but yet-HE PREPARES THE FOOD FOR THEM AS WELL.
Not only does he prepare the food for the ones who he know will not eat, but he is also appealing to them, to come and eat, by appealing to their hunger, and need for nourishment. Why? BECAUSE THE PREPARER OF THE FOOD, IN THE PARK, AMONGST THE HOMELESS FAMISHED FOLK, EVEN LOVES THOSE THAT WILL REJECT HIS FREE OFFERING OF NOURISHMENT.
He realizes that he gave it the old college try, and that in the end, they can’t blame anyone but themselves, if they decide not to come and eat. How so? BECAUSE THE PREPARER OF THE FOOD, AGAIN, MADE PROVISIONS FOR THEM TO EAT AS WELL, WHEREAS THERE HARD HEARTEDNESS WAS SO INTENSE, AS OPPOSE TO THE OTHERS WHO YIELDED TO WHAT WAS BEING OFFERED, TO WHERE THEY PREFERRED TO STARVE, THAN TO PARTAKE OF THE FOOD, PREPARED BY THE PREPARER.
Amongst the folks that will eat of the food, are those from all types, whether it be racial, class, ages, etc.-for this is by course.
Having said aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaalllll of that, you do have in the greek, words that specifically refer to “all”, “everyone,” or “whoever,” as specific types, as opposed to everyone, or the whole, such as the word “pas.”
For instance, words like “malista” in greek, can refer to most (in the greatest degree); particularly; chiefly; most of all; or especially. The word “hosos,” which is another greek word used in the New Testament, along with “malista”, refers to all of that; as long, as many, as much, as much as; so many as.
Whereas all of the verses that describe “all” “everyone,” “whoever,” “whosoever,” and the like, when it comes to salvation, always use the inclusive greek word “pas”, not “malista”, or “hosos,” which would be more appropriate greek words to utilize, for your calvinist/reformed position.
Even though the word “pas” can encompass: 1 individually. 1a each, every, any, all, the whole, everyone, all things, everything; or 2 collectively. 2a some of all types., etc.- the context within the verses of scripture, in which this greek word is used, renders the interpretation to encompass the other definitional aspects of this word such as: AV translates as “all” 748 times, “all things” 170 times, “every” 117 times, “all men” 41 times, “whosoever” 31 times, “everyone” 28 times, “whole” 12 times, “all manner of” 11 times, “every man” 11 times, “no + 3756” nine times, “every thing” seven times, “any” seven times, “whatsoever” six times, “whosoever + 3739 + 302” three times, “always + 1223” three times, “daily + 2250” twice, “any thing” twice, “no + 3361” twice, not translated seven times, and translated miscellaneously 26 times.
Not only that, even if the word “pas” in these verses in question, was referring to “each,” “any,” “all,” “the whole,” “everyone,” “all things,” “everything,” “collectively,” “some of all types,” IT STILL FITS INTO THE INCLUSIVE BANNER OF JESUS DYING FOR ALL, AND NOT FOR SOME-in the sense of how you’re interpreting the passages in question.
Some will say again, that the aspect of the word “pas” which means “some of all types,” buttresses their reformed position on the matter, however if you closely look at the context of the scripture in which the word is being used, it really doesn’t. Why-because in the end, scripture teaches us that saved folks will come from every nation, and every tongue, right? ABSOLUTELY! This means that in the end, “some of all types” will be saved, once you shake the cup, and roll out the dice.
Why? JESUS SAID GO INTO ALL NATIONS AND SPREAD THE GOSPEL TO ALL HUMAN BEINGS, so in God’s economy, and the context of the verses I quoted previously on the other post to Lionel, the words “all” “everyone,” “whoever,” means everyone that calls upon the name of the Lord, which will include “some of all types.” The Holy Spirit was letting us know with the all encompassing word “pas,” that salvation wasn’t limited to a nation, or just one specific group of people, but to everyone, to every people, who represent “some of all types.”
Again now, if the Holy Spirit wanted “all” “everyone” or “whoever” to only deal with a select few, not everyone, then the greek words “malista” and “hosos”, would’ve been used.
Oh and lastly on this point-There is no equivalent greek word for “all” in John 3:16. At least not in the King James Version…
-Additional Information: … “the whole world has gone after him” Did all the world go after Christ?
*Give me chapter and verse, so I can check the greek and context. Just throwing this verse up here, without any reference, is hard to contextually address.
-“then went all Judea, and were baptized of him in Jordan.” Was all Judea, or all Jerusalem, baptized in Jordan?
*Maybe so, but if they weren’t, the greek word “pas” in this instance, was referring to the COLLECTIVE, and not the entire group. All things being the same (so they say), this still doesn’t fit into your theological framework, for in this particular verse, it says that “all Judea…were baptized of him in Jordan,” not a certain type of Judeans, but as many as freely came to John. In other words, this verse doesn’t imply that the intent of John’s baptism, were for a select few, but for all of those in Judea. It’s like me saying that the participants of a particular event, came from a specific church, or school. Now, logic and common sense will dictate that probably not everyone from that church, or school, showed up to participate, but that a great majority, or the general collective did freely show up to participate in this event.
In other words, the context of this verse has to do with the collective, and not the all encompassing commission that Jesus gave the church. To say otherwise is like trying to fit a 15 inch foot, in a size 8 shoe.
- “Ye are of God, little children”, and the whole world lieth in the wicked one”.
*Again, please give me chapter and verse. But dig it, I can use what you’re throwing at me, even though I prefer some references behind it.
-Does the whole world there mean everybody?
*Uh no, it means “collectively.”
-The words “world” and “all” are used in some seven or eight senses in Scripture, and it is very rarely the “all” means all persons, taken individually.
*I agree with that, HOWEVER, what I’m saying is, and what others who hold my position are saying, is that the verses of scripture that relates to everyone, or all being saved, contextually refers to all of humanity having a shot at salvation, because again, this is what the context stresses in those verses. For if the Holy Spirit wanted the writers to be specific, the greek words “malista”, or “hosos” would’ve been exclusively used, so as to cause no confusion, or ambiguity.
-The words are generally used to signify that Christ has redeemed some of all sorts—some Jews, some Gentiles, some rich, some poor, and has not restricted His redemption to either Jew or Gentile …—C.H. Spurgeon from a sermon on Particular Redemption.
*Well, Spurgeon ain’t Jesus, nor the Holy Ghost, and unfortunate for your side of the aisle, HE AIN’T THE END ALL, BE ALL, WHEN IT COMES TO PROPER BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION.
Having said that, of course God hasn’t restricted “His redemption to either Jew or Gentile,” because it is for every human being on the face of the earth, that includes “either Jew or Gentile,” or “some rich, some poor,” etc.
-So is this verse saying that Jesus died for “all” every single human being that would ever exist on the face of the earth?
*Those who were living during the time of Jesus, and since that time:YES.
-Could it possible mean that he died for “some of all types” of peoples on the face of the earth?
*Of course Jesus died for “some of all types” that represents “peoples on the face of the earth.” I’ve never denied that, but my interpretation of “some of all types,” that represents all “peoples on the face of the earth” doesn’t mean Jesus didn’t die for everyone, but rather it augments the fact that he did indeed die for everyone, regardless of who they are, and where they are from.
-Remember Jesus was speaking to Nicodemus a Jewish Rabbi who believed that Salvation was for the Jews only.
*Oh yes.
-How many times did the crowds go off when either Jesus or Paul suggested that God considered the Gentile nations as equal with the Jews.
*Okay break it down, and uh-what’s your point Steve?
-This verse is speaking of Universal Salvation
*You got that right friend.
-but not for “every single person”
*Where does it say in the verses that I quoted to Lionel, and many other verses that I can potentially quote on the matter, that salvation is not for everyone, in the sense that Jesus INTENTIONALLY didn’t die for everyone, but only a select few?
Not even John 3:16 says this.
-but for “every single nation” People of every tongue, tribe, and nation will be saved.
*Of course “every single nation” will have those representatives that are saved, because that is the net effect of JESUS DYING FOR ALL HUMANITY, NOT RESTRICTING HIS SALVATION TO ONLY A NATION OF PEOPLE, OR LOCALE.
I’m sorry, but from where I’m standing, reformed theology is nothing more than a type of phariseeism in these modern times-or it can be. Reformed folks are the main ones who push cessationist teachings (oh, you have quite a few arminians, or those who believe in unlimited atonement, pushing cessationist teachings as well, but it is almost a unanimous belief amongst the reformed folks), while teaching that the Kingdom of Heaven is shut up against certain folks.
No my friends who are reformed, no matter how you slice it, this aspect of reformed theology (I can stomach the perseverance of the saints teaching) is patently unbiblical, and can only produce those of the “frozen chosen” class of christian, that’s full of the word, but that’s about all.
I sincerely pray that you guys reconsider this short-sighted, and unbiblical carnal position.
Steve said:
-You are looking for a fight to defend your view. I am not on here do defend Calvinism since this is a reformed blog. I was an Arminian for 20 years. Just embrace Reformed 4 months ago. I used all the scriptures you did to PROVE MY POSITION but NEVER read one Reformed Book, Commentary.
*First of all, I’m not looking for a fight, the Holy Spirit is leading me in this direction. I would just love to stay low in the cut, and agree with 85% of what I read on here, however that other pesky 15% which includes reformed theology, as it relates to limited atonement-I must occasionally speak out on it.
Furthermore, I am familiar with reformed literature, their beliefs, and why they believe what they believe. I’m just not buying their policies.
-Never tried to really see what the reformed teachings really said. When I finally did I realized it was the true word of God.
*I will admit that reformed folks can make a compelling argument for their side, but the true doctrine isn’t judged by compelling arguments, but by proper interpretation.
-So I will not dialogue with you any longer.
*Okay…
-If you really want to know why we believe what we do and are open to hear truth so you can really understand that is a different story.
*I’ve heard your arguments, studied your materials, and heard your side debate, and still find the concept of limited atonement lacking in support, as it relate to scripture. To me, limited atonement is a “lazy man’s” approach to looking at the world, and why some will spend eternity in hell. Furthermore, it can be a tool used to justify not going out there, and spreading the word to every creature. It can also be a tool by some (not all), to not have their christian light shine as an example to the world, for the belief will be that the world really doesn’t need to see my light, or hear my words drenched in the love and word of God, seeing as how if someone’s going to come to Christ, they will do so regardless of the example I put forth.
-But to go back and forth is kind of futile, don’t you think.
*Yeah, I guess it can be.
-God Bless my arminian brother
*God bless you too, my reformed brother, who I’ll just have to agree to disagree with.
-Seeker,
You are right. I was going to post a response but it would be futile as you said “I already know the arugement” and “I still don’t believe much of it”. This is one of those agree to disagree posts.
*I can see where you’re coming from, and in the end, that may be the mature thing to do, from both our sides.
-I will say if you accuse me of hermeneutic fallacy your use of 2 Corinthians “all” would lead you to be a universalists. Because “all” Christ died for “all” died and now they are to “all” live for Him. Right? The use of the word all works in your disfavor. Just be careful of using that verse with others who hold my position they will eat you up with that one.
*I appreciate the warning, this is why I say that in proper biblical hermeneutics, scripture interprets scripture, so much so, that when you encounter a “problem” verse in a doctrinal issue, just make sure you interpret that verse in light of other more clear scripture.
Here’s a more clear verse of scripture, that sheds light on unlimited atonement:
1 John 2:2:
“He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for OURS but also for the sins of the WHOLE WORLD.” (Note the distinction between “ours” and “the whole world.”)
I respect your right to your beliefs, and think you have an excellent blog, and I appreciate the courtesy you’ve given me on this subject. From now on, I will try and refrain from such a topic, respecting the prevailing beliefs on this site.
In line with the earlier discussion on the issue of Reformed Charismatics—as I’ve been in that camp and it’s the one I found to be the Best Blend on a myriad of issues….and Most Biblical Camp if Reformed Theology is what one’s looking into (even though I don’t suscribe to Reformed Theology 1–%), there was an article I reviewed by another brother in the Lord that truly blessed me….and I wanted to give that out here. It’s called Teaching a Calvinist to Dance ….
An excerpt from the article:
Pray that the rest of the article blessed someone—as the man’s apart of one of the movements I’m associated with that affects many young adults today called the Emergent Church, as he’s generally associated with that camp…but he’s also Calvinistic Himself and is very dynamic in his views.
Another article of interest that stood out to me is one that was set in the discussion of Charismatic/Continuist churches vs Non-Charismatic ones—-specifically, in regards to the Black Church. If anyone knows of Joseph Garlington, he’s actually the pastor over the church I’ve grown up in….and I was always amazed by the Charismatic Experience I was able to have in Praise and Worship in comparision to what I often saw in many Reformed Circles. And many times, I thought that it was skewed for any of them to blast anything within the Black Church when it seemed that all of the learning they had did not lead them to be very excited by what the Lord was doing today….or acknowledging how similar the Black Charismatic Church experience was to the Early Church. And if I had to choose between what I knew of in Kirk Franklin/Israel Houghto and Tye Tribbet and what I saw in many Reformed Circles, there was no context. Found an article on the issue that I thought was very thought provoking and was curious as to what others felt about it —as it was from a Dialouge regarding the role of the Holy Spirit today alongside numerous other articles dealing with issues commonly discussed on the sites such as what gifts in the Bible continued and how to treat many of the supernatural ones people are not comforatable with like prophecy/healings….and it dealt with Charismatic Worship in the Black Church and it’s impact on Charismatics todaytoday…..which was interesting, seeing that one of the main individuals noted, Joseph Garlington, is the overseer over the pastor at my home church and it has been a BLAST everytime he comes——(an exceprt Bible.org: The Spirit in the Black Church:
Seekerman you typed:
“First of all, I’m not looking for a fight, the Holy Spirit is leading me in this direction.”
(BLD) I have to ask some honest questions. Trust me, I do not intend to get into any Calvinist vs. Arminian debate with you or anyone else. (If I can help it, lol) But here’s the question:
Do you consider those who have come to a different/opposite interpretation and subsequent conclusion than you on the exact same scriptures, as also being led by the Holy Spirit? Why or why not?
Can the Holy Spirit be held responsible for leading two different believers to two different conclusions based on their interpretation of those scriptures? Why or why not?
Shouldn’t we be very careful as to what thoughts, beliefs, actions, etc. that we attribute to the Holy Spirit? Why or why not?
Thanks in advance for your responses!
Meant to say earlier that it was this comment among other that I made the other two postings on Reformed Charismatics and theology–as I’ve had the same experiences….and It’s always amazing seeing the myriad of shapes that Reformed Individuals come in. Some examples of people who I believe have a very solid grasp of things while also bridging the Gap in regards to things Charismatic are people such as J. Rodman Williams , who was a Presbyterian who served as a pastor for several years before becoming a full-time educator…and who also was a key figure in the charismatic movement of the 1960s, alongside being the president of the International Presbyterian Charismatic Communion.
Others many may not of are people like the ministry headed by leading Reformed Charismatic Terry Virgo—which is significant as the man was heavily involved in the Charismatic Movement in Britain and one of the men that was influential in much of what we know of regarding the House Church Movement being developed…He did some Online lectures from New Frontiers’ conference in the USA. NEW FRONTIERS CHURCH LEADERSHIP CONFERENCE,
Others I’ve learned from are people such as Wayne Grudem, Adrian Warnock and various others. The most notable one would be kats such as Sam Storms , especially seeing that he used to be Cessationist/knew all the arguments that used to confound me in light of the myriad of experiences I had as a Charismatic—from witnesssing healings to prophecy/prophetic words and other things along those lines ). If anyone’s interested, one can investigate Storms’s Website (http://www.enjoyinggodministries.com )..or go listen to some of his audio sermons such as CONVERGENCE (iTunes podcast)- a sermon by Sam Storms on “Reformed Charismatic” theology, with a s QUESTION AND ANSWERS session available…….
He also did a very in-depth study on the life of other Reformed Individuals and how similar their experiences would be to ours today. Would highly suggest that all here consider investigating the following, as it deals with the issue of spiritual gifts throughout History (though not necessarily in the early centuries of Church History) which was very beneficial on the issue entitled Signs of the Spirit by Dr. Sam Storms, which explained many things about Jonathan Edwards’ view of the spiritual life…..and interestingly so seeing that Edwards’ Religious Affections were written in the time of Revival (the Great Awakening) or what folks might call a Holy Ghost Party.
The same thing can be found in the Revival’s by Jonathan Edwards. For example, Jonathan Edwards during the time of the Great Awakening in America in the 1730’s and 1740’s…& provided the most thoughtful and comprehensive biblical evaluations, reflections and writings about the manifestations of the Spirit. (Taken from A Narrative of Surprising Conversations and the Great Awakening, Vol 4 of The Works Of Edwards)
If you’d like more info regarding those who’re Reformed Charismatics, one can always go here for starters: Heat and Light
Excellent question, Brother LD…
I was wondering the same, as I’ve seen a myriad of powerful truths within/without Reformed Theology—just as it has been with some things I think are horrible interpretations. If I had to choose between John Wesely’s view of scripture when it came to something such as love for the welfare of one’s neighbor and Jonathan Edwards, I’d have to sincerly say that it was Reformed Theology that missed the mark on that one—as I know many took the concept of Sovereignty to mean that one should not fight against slavery….and others not holding to it did otherwise..
Of course, that gets into the question of whether correct actions are always evidence of correct orthodoxy/theology—–as I’d think that the concept of Sovereingty would not lead people to be passive….so anyone claiming Reformed Theology in those times who did nothing could be said that perhaps they were wrongly interpreting the scriptures…
In keeping with the thrust of this post, I also marvel at how aloof and ungracious those who subscribe to Reformed Theology can be-it seems that those of us who embrace the doctrines of grace should be the most joyful and gracious people on the face of the earth.
With that said, I also agree with Lionel and brother Lawrence D. that there is no compelling reason to debate the issue when everyone already has their minds made up and has their cut and paste arguments ready to go. I know because I am the king of the cut and paste argument. I have a lot of ammunition on my word processor!
Remember that Calvinism has a scale 4 pointer or five pointer or folks like me who come in vacilating between a 4 or 5 pointer so you can say I come in as a 4.5 pointer!
In the same way Arminians also have a sliding scale from those who believe in unlimited atonement and the ability to lose ones salvation to those who believe in unlimited atonement but also embrace the perseverance of the saints.
Additionally I love the Reformers passion for the Word of God as well as the Anabaptists passion for The Man presented to us in the Word of God.
Now, I do not wish to seem like I am giving a politicians response to the issue of atonement, but for your consideration here is how I define myself at this point in time!
I personally do not subscribe to TULIP, I subscribe to TUDIP!
Definite Atonement
I believe that all human beings have offended God through sin and are liable to His holy judgment (Ro. 2:9; 3:23; 6:23). All human beings stand in need of forgiveness of sin and making amends to God, but lack the ability to do so (Job 15:14-16; Is. 64:6; Gal. 2:16; 3:21). I believe that Christ obtained the forgiveness of sin and made amends to God’s holy character by His sacrificial death on the cross (Ro. 3:25; 8:3; Heb. 9:26-28). Christ’s sacrifice was substitutionary in that He died in the sinner’s place (Mk. 10:45; 14:24; Jn 10:15; 11:50-52; Ro. 5:6, 8 1 Co. 15:3; Gal. 1:4). His death was penal in that he absorbed the penalty due to the sinner for all his transgressions of God’s law (Ro. 3:25-26; 2 Co. 5:21; Gal. 3:13; Col. 2:13-14). I believe that before the foundation of the world, the Father designed the death of Christ to be a perfect propitiation of His holiness, a genuine reconciliation of the broken relationship with man and true redemption from the enslavement to sin (Ro. 3:25; 1 Jn. 2:2; 4:10; Ro. 5:10; 2 Co. 5:18-20; Col. 1:20; Gal. 4:4; 1 Pe. 1:18; Heb. 9:12-15; Rev. 5:9). I believe that the extent of the atonement, for whom Christ died, is in harmony with the atonement’s design, namely God’s purpose to redeem a people for Himself (Mt. 1:21; Lk. 19:10; Jn. 10:14-15; 15:13; 17:6, 9, 19; Ro. 8:32; Eph. 5:25). I believe that definite atonement in no way hinders the fulfillment of the Great Commission, whereby a sincere universal offering of the gospel is to be made to all persons (Mt. 28:19; Jn. 3:16; Ac. 1:8).
Glad to see that I’m not crazy in some of the ways I view things, Brother Hutch, as I’m pretty much the same as you when it comes to Reformed Theology. The scale they use to weigh things has been useful (i.e. “Are you 5-point, or 3 point or something else?”) —- as if it came to Reformed Theology, I’d probably be like one such as Mark Driscoll …as he’s a 4½-point Calvinist and something known as an Emerging Reformer.
http://download.marshillchurch.org/media/2008/02/24/20080224_emerging-church_audio.mp3.
& Mark Driscoll on the difference between emerging and emergent
Driscoll’s stance as an Emerging Reformer is also more akin to what I’d be– (though I’d also be for those within the Emerging House Church Movement—-especially seeing the connections they’d have with typically tend to be different from older Reformers in that worship tends to be free and they believe in all the gifts for today as Charismatics—and the only reservation I’d have with that is the same thing Driscoll has with those such as Rob Bell, Brian Mclaren, etc)
Thankfully, there’re a myriad of flavors within the camp of those who’re Reformed Charismatic as well so one cannot say that it’s all the same across the board. Some believe in Reformed Theology—but on things CHarismatics, one would see many of the things you’d not expect in more conservative circles, such as with Sam Storms referencing the works of kats like Jack Deere in “Signs of the Spirit” and John Piper being open/respectful of the works of John Wimber of “Power Evangelism” alongside other movements that’re not explicitly Pentecostal such as Andy Stanley’’s CHurch and the movement of PASSION with Louie Giglio. For them, many of the things considered to be “just plain ol pentecostal” by many (including those things that may been seen in many hyper-charismatic circles, from high levels of excitment/exuberance in praise & worship with crying/shouting and running around to slain in the spirit to praying for signs/wonders and various other things) are not necessarily inconsistent with a Reformed Worldview.
Others are trying to bridge the gap with Reformed Theology in the Urban/Black community (including Hip Hop Culture) such as ministries like ones from one of my dear brothers in the Lord here or “Reach Records”with kats like Lecrae, Trip Lee, Sha Linn and vaious others…
Meant to say thanks, by the way, for your expression on Unlimited Atonment—as I can definately dig the term “TUDIP” and the concept you prescribe…though at this point in life, I’m guessing it has always been something I’ve been for since I’ve said the same on various other ocassions in differing discussions abroad/in my personal thoughts…
Reformed Theology is definately something I think has many valid points—just as it is with other groups, whether Wesleyan or Anabaptist and a host of others….and like yourself, I find myself vacilating at times between some of the points in Reformed Thinking. I hate feeling “trapped” or being within the thought that I can only learn from one paticular camp/not be able to treat others as “Equals” when I call them Brothers (somewhat similar to Biblical Ecumenicalism)….and hence, that’s why in Reformed Theology I’d tend to lean toward and be most similar to kats such as Sam Storms since I see the same mentality with him being Reformed and yet learning from others in various camps –whether in the Charismatic Movement or elsewhere.
Being apart of the fellowship I’m in (which is Messianic Jewish, it’s a bit different for me. I go to a fellowship known as The Root ( //rootofthetree.wordpress.com/about/ ), which is a fellowship of Christians in the Anglican tradition that is dedicated to the study of the Jewish or Hebraic Roots and practices of the Early Church, alongside studying and teaching the contemplative practices of the Church and seeking to be Christ-centered, Bible-focused community.
Talk about culture shock when I first encountered them..but it has been cool ever since…..and I’m peace, as I was comforted to know it was apart of a larger movement known as the Convergence Movement, http://www.ceecusa.org/a_convergence.php ), I tend to try and choose “The Best of Both Worlds” in all trains of thought that I encounter. Whether Reformed, Emerging/Emergent, Baptist, Charismatic, Prebysterian, Anglican, Simple Church/Organic Church and any other variation one can think of…
Where I’m currently at in life, I think people can best interact/learn when they’re seeking to have the mentality of “Sempra Reformanda” and always being in a state of learning—even in those times where people have chosen to agree to disagree AGREEABLY.
-Seekerman you typed:
“First of all, I’m not looking for a fight, the Holy Spirit is leading me in this direction.”
-(BLD) I have to ask some honest questions.
*Okay shoot.
-Trust me, I do not intend to get into any Calvinist vs. Arminian debate with you or anyone else. (If I can help it, lol) But here’s the question:
*Okay.
-Do you consider those who have come to a different/opposite interpretation and subsequent conclusion than you on the exact same scriptures, as also being led by the Holy Spirit? Why or why not?
*No, I don’t think they’re being led of the Holy Spirit; rather, they’re being led by their own reasoning, absent the Holy Spirit. It’s similar to oneness folks who try to make sense out of the Godhead, instead of embracing what’s written/revealed there in scripture.
-Can the Holy Spirit be held responsible for leading two different believers to two different conclusions based on their interpretation of those scriptures? Why or why not?
*First of all, I don’t believe that limited atonement and unlimited atonement are issues that are heaven and hell issues, in that a proponent of either belief will lose their salvation, or end up in hell. HOWEVER, I do believe that one side is closer to the essence of what the Holy Spirit is revealing in scripture, more so than the other side.
Again, with the fear of sounding redundant, I believe one side is relying to heavily on finite reasoning, in order to make possible, certain scriptural interpretations, because it “makes sense” as opposed to, AGAIN, accepting what the scriptures reveal.
-Shouldn’t we be very careful as to what thoughts, beliefs, actions, etc. that we attribute to the Holy Spirit? Why or why not?
*Yes we should. The reason being is because many false prophets have gone out into the world, this why scripture says discern the spirits to see whether they are of God. This can also apply to doctrinal issues.
-Thanks in advance for your responses!
*You’re welcome. And with that said, like you, I will attempt to avoid a Calvinism versus Arminianism type of debate, even though it was highly tempting; especially when answering your last question.
It has been real all.
God bless merry CHRISTx (my answer to Xmas)
Steve
http://www.theauthorofmyfaith.blogspot.com
SEEKER you are welcome to visit my site and comment I will listen to what you have to say and will respond accordingly.
I am not afraid of debate but I already know what I believe.
God BLess
Have a Merry Christmas as well, and I’ll check out your site in the new year…
I too will check out, but will answer Bro. Lawrence’s question, if he responds, but he will be the last person I’ll respond to.
I’ve enjoyed my brief time on this site, but it’s time for me to go into “hibernation” for the rest of the year. Keep the faith, and have a blessed New Year.
Lionel says:
“Many who hold to the Doctrines of Grace simultaneously embraces the Puritans. I will tell you upfront I am no fan of the Puritans. I tried the little reading club and purchased a bunch of books from Banner of Truth but by the second book, I felt that I needed to go to confession, Celebrate Recovery, Excommunicate myself, and then join a monastery! Why? Because they focused on Sin more than Christ. I found myself policing my entire life, instead of depending on and trusting in the only one who could save me. I found myself doing the opposite of what they were saying. Which was applying the blood to the doorposts of my life, instead of trying to stack up enough chips to pay the house back what I owed!”
Is it possible you misunderstood the Puritans you read? Could you have read truth and not been able to apply it properly – or at least as fast as you desired? Sanctification is long and slow process – it is a long race and not a short sprint. I believe a famous NT perosn used this analogy
Your statement depends on which of the 2 books you read. BTW, the puritans wrote thousands! Honestly, one thing I have never heard anyone say is that the Puritans lacked the Gospel. They may not like the Puritans taking sin seriuosly with their focus on mortification of sin and vivification of the Gospel. BTW, the overwhelming majority of Christians in our modern culture do not take sin seriously. Evidenced clearly by our churches who do not model taking sin seriously – they do not confess sin publically and many pastor will not us the word “sin” in a sermon or counsleing (this should be an application that ties back into your post concernig “fake” Pastors/Christians and wearing masks).
I honestly do not know how a Christian can claim to be actively living the “Christian” life w/o a view that the Puritans took and applied. Undertsand that the Puritans rediscovered and implemented what some call “subjective/practical Calvinism.” They sought to see their high view of: 1) a holy and sovereign God, 2) depraved man who seeks his own comfort and salvation in any way other than Christ, and 3) the necessary power/presence of the Holy Spirit to convict of sin and encourage in righteousness and 4) all of these beliefs viewed/lived THROUGH the necessary Gospel of Christ. They wanted to see their theology as incarnational within each believer and especially lived outside towards others.
The only offense that one recieves when following the Puritans Biblcial model – is an offense of the flesh! We know that the Scriptures teach that the flesh is set against the Spirit. If my flesh be ofended by the conviction of sin brought about by the Holy Spirit – praise God – that means I am His child. W/o this fight of flesh and Spirit one needs to seriously ask if they have recieved regeneration and are the dwelling of Christ’s Spirit. The tendency for the Christianis one that tends to swing between to poles: They see their works as secuirng their salvation (Pharisee) or believe they live with less sin or make light of sinful behaviour (Libertines) because they are reborn and “free in Christ.” The point is that “the gospel of cheap grace” is promoted by both ways of living. Making light of sin and not seeking to kill your sinful ways (via the Holy Spirit alone) is to fall captive to their powerful sway. Seeking to thwart off the flesh with the flesh is nothing but making light if Christ work and the Spirit’s indwelling and work in your life.
I woudl like to hear more about your intital offenses after reading the Puritans. I would also like to hear the titles of the two books you read.
Sincerely,
David Jacks
Fort Worth, Texas
Hey David,
1. The Mortification of Sin
2. Thr Godly Man’s Picture
3. The Doctrine of Repentance
Sir each of those works can easily turn a man into a legalist. Furthermore the godly’s man picture takes a bunch of scriptures out of context, if a man preached the way that book was written there would be many “expository” police out to arrest him.