Bible Study BLASPHEMY of the HOLY SPIRIT = The Unpardonable Sin??

[HeIsRisen2018]

Very good post HIR. I don't remember calling anyone name though. Btw, Jesus wasn't t always sweetness and light. He Brookes no nonsense. He called the Pharisees hypocrites and the sons of Satan. He spoke to people as blind leaders of the blind. He called liars liars. Speaking truth in a forceful and definite way is not calling someone a name. Thanks for the post and the PM.

As not to derail the thread anymore or cause conflict I will go ahead and PM you my response.

 

[GodsGrace]

That is the beauty of God and I think that is where words can have two meanings. I'm not a scholar at all and I love to watch Pastor Melissa Scott only for her knowledge of the languages. In the Greek language, one word can mean a couple things. I know that God does this for a reason.

So to answer you. He was just calling me, but he calls "us" also because there are those he calls. If you hear his voice and you are "his" you will hear.

Does God want everyone to be saved or just some certain persons?

The N.T. teaches us that God wants everyone to be saved.
1 Timothy 1:3-4
3This is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, 4who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.

We become His AFTER hearing His voice....
Faith comes by hearing....
First we hear...
and then we have faith.
Romans 10:17
17So faith comes from hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ.

 

[GodsGrace]

Then you have given away everything you have to the poor and followed Jesus ... and live a communal lifestyle like in the book of Acts ... and you hate your mother and father ... and you have cut off your hand and gouged out an eye, right?

I thought you wanted to communicate.
Your foolish statement indicates that you have only come to sow discord and to offer empty rhetorical insults, so you get tit for tat and I waste no more time on you.

[You have yet to properly exegete Ephesians 2 ... for someone that only follows the doctrine of Christ, you ignore vast swaths of Scripture to pound the drum on a few pet verses plucked from context.]

Here's the problem A....
You and I have been through the same verses....
You stick to Ephesians as if it were the only book in the N.T.

Jesus said to give happily...where did He say we have to give away everything we own?

I know, you know, what Jesus meant by hating our mother and father.

And I know, you know that He didn't actually, literally mean to gouge out ones eye.

So, yes, sometimes the conversation becomes silly.

A disciple follows what Jesus taught...for example:
The Beatitudes.
The forgiving of others.
The sharing of our food-clothes, etc.
Asking forgiveness of God.
Obeying Him.
etc.

Must we discuss the Rich Young Man?
Do you really not know the meaning of that scripture?
I'm sure you do.

How about answering a question I've asked every reformed person I've spoken to and have never received an answer...perhaps I even asked you:

Since you like to state that the Father must draw us to Christ,
John 6:44

How do you reconcile that with,
John 14:6

And
1 Timothy 2:4

 

[GodsGrace]

And also vice-versa, which is interesting.

Yes! When I looked at what I wrote it sound backwards...but it could work both ways. ----- Attributing to God something satan does.

You have been right to distinguish the blasphemy from the sin. Although they were blaspheming The Holy Spirit by blaspheming the spirit by which Jesus did His works, they are not shown as advancing to oppose The Holy Spirit after He warned them. It shows that they were opposing Him personally, but not opposing God (in intention - though in reality we know better because they were deceived).

If they had have been so determined, they would have retorted and so fixed themselves as enemies of the spirit that was working through Him - and we see in fact that Jesus has brought that issue by asking them "by whose spirit do your son's do their works?" - knowing full well that the house they were of is divided and also was divided against Him.

When I was a new Christian, it took me some time to realize how sharp and witty Jesus was in asking His questions.

The fact that the spirit doesn't change, and one cannot have a relationship with a spirit unless they are born of the spirit, necessitates that any person blaspheming the spirit of God is fixing themselves into a state of opposing the spirit that is holy.

It is easy for someone to explain their mistake when they realise that they have been wrong about Jesus, by assuming that He is as much a liar or lunatic as they are, because they are seeing him as a human and their idea of human nature is warped by their fallen mind.

You see much detail in everything. Do I remember correctly...are you studying theology?

I have often said that Jesus is either God or he is a crazy man. He cannot be a good teacher of a nice Prophet ---

However, to say that the Holy Spirit is not holy, is impossible without choosing to say that what is good is bad (in other words, it cannot be done in a blameless way, the only way is to do a culpable sin - the condemnation from which would drive them into hiding from God Himself, not merely the shame of having mistreated an innocent man).

Agreed. It it not the same as mistreating a man,,,even an innocent one.

But would they hide from God?
If they blaspheme the Holy Spirit, doesn't it mean they no longer care if they do??

 

[LovethroughDove]

Does God want everyone to be saved or just some certain persons?

The N.T. teaches us that God wants everyone to be saved.
1 Timothy 1:3-4
3This is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, 4who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.

We become His AFTER hearing His voice....
Faith comes by hearing....
First we hear...
and then we have faith.
Romans 10:17
17So faith comes from hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ.

He desires, but that doesn't happen

John 3:19-21

And, I agree with faith comes by hearing. Sometimes it takes awhile though. I think I was each one of the kinds of ground in the Sower and the Seed parable, until my ground became ready to take root. I do not go into detail, cause I know you know the Sower and Seed parable.

 

[Boaz]

Here's the problem A....
You and I have been through the same verses....
You stick to Ephesians as if it were the only book in the N.T.

Jesus said to give happily...where did He say we have to give away everything we own?

I know, you know, what Jesus meant by hating our mother and father.

And I know, you know that He didn't actually, literally mean to gouge out ones eye.

So, yes, sometimes the conversation becomes silly.

A disciple follows what Jesus taught...for example:
The Beatitudes.
The forgiving of others.
The sharing of our food-clothes, etc.
Asking forgiveness of God.
Obeying Him.
etc.

Must we discuss the Rich Young Man?
Do you really not know the meaning of that scripture?
I'm sure you do.

How about answering a question I've asked every reformed person I've spoken to and have never received an answer...perhaps I even asked you:

Since you like to state that the Father must draw us to Christ,
John 6:44

How do you reconcile that with,
John 14:6

And
1 Timothy 2:4

W
Did you mean John 14: 6? " No one comes to the Father except through me". I'm not sure what it has to do with John 6:44.
Other than that, I am not going to have the theological convo we have already had.
I do want to say something about the Reformed controversy that keeps surfacing. A conclusion I have reached. The participants against come into the debate not with any curiosity at how we arrive at our conclusions, not a genuine interest in our methodology but rather a desire to tear it down and state their own interpretations of what the theology teaches as being the facts. Even when they are told by someone who is Reformed that their statement is incorrect.
I am sure this also happens on the other side too. But there is a passive aggressiveness about it. What at first glance appears to be genuine desire to understand is exposed as baiting. The two parties are talking on different planes . I began my Christianity believing free will, that we make the choice so I know how particular scriptures are being interpreted by A's and how difficult it is to see it another way. Simple expressions and wording, like believe and you will be saved, or God desires all to be saved. And to explain that slight but legitimate (not a matter of twisting) difference in tense, or syntax usage is impossible I guess. Example I tried with the other person. Believe and you will be saved. Me saying it could just as well a statement of what constitutes salvation, belief, as opposed that we have, of our own accord begin believing and THEN we will be saved. I say salvation is believing and that is what it was stating. The other person insisted it was proving free will. So. Asking Reformed believers to explain or justify one scripture against another is an exercise in futility and I wish it would stop. No matter what we say, we will never be understood because no one really wants to understand, just refute. ?

 

[atpollard]

Here's the problem A....
You and I have been through the same verses....
You stick to Ephesians as if it were the only book in the N.T.

... And you act like that book isn’t in the Bible. ?

So, yes, sometimes the conversation becomes silly.

I did not find it “silly” when someone accused me of rejecting the teaching of Christ for the teaching of men because they disagree with how I interpret the word of God (Along with roughly half of Christian theologians starting with the Apostle Paul and Augustine). I shook the dust off my feet. ☣

(I am unsure why you want to take up a bitter disagreement between two other people and carry it forward. What possible good can come of it?)

 

[atpollard]

How about answering a question I've asked every reformed person I've spoken to and have never received an answer...perhaps I even asked you:
Since you like to state that the Father must draw us to Christ,
John 6:44
How do you reconcile that with,
John 14:6

I reconcile this ...

[John 6:43-47 NIV]
43 "Stop grumbling among yourselves," Jesus answered. 44 "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws them, and I will raise them up at the last day. 45 It is written in the Prophets: 'They will all be taught by God.' Everyone who has heard the Father and learned from him comes to me. 46 No one has seen the Father except the one who is from God; only he has seen the Father. 47 Very truly I tell you, the one who believes has eternal life.

to this ...

[John 14:1-14 NIV]
1 "Do not let your hearts be troubled. You believe in God; believe also in me. 2 My Father's house has many rooms; if that were not so, would I have told you that I am going there to prepare a place for you? 3 And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come back and take you to be with me that you also may be where I am. 4 You know the way to the place where I am going." 5 Thomas said to him, "Lord, we don't know where you are going, so how can we know the way?" 6 Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. 7 If you really know me, you will know my Father as well. From now on, you do know him and have seen him." 8 Philip said, "Lord, show us the Father and that will be enough for us." 9 Jesus answered: "Don't you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, 'Show us the Father'? 10 Don't you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me? The words I say to you I do not speak on my own authority. Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work. 11 Believe me when I say that I am in the Father and the Father is in me; or at least believe on the evidence of the works themselves. 12 Very truly I tell you, whoever believes in me will do the works I have been doing, and they will do even greater things than these, because I am going to the Father. 13 And I will do whatever you ask in my name, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son. 14 You may ask me for anything in my name, and I will do it.

by remembering this ...

[Romans 8:23-30 NIV]
23 Not only so, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for our adoption to sonship, the redemption of our bodies. 24 For in this hope we were saved. But hope that is seen is no hope at all. Who hopes for what they already have? 25 But if we hope for what we do not yet have, we wait for it patiently. 26 In the same way, the Spirit helps us in our weakness. We do not know what we ought to pray for, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us through wordless groans. 27 And he who searches our hearts knows the mind of the Spirit, because the Spirit intercedes for God's people in accordance with the will of God. 28 And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose. 29 For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers and sisters. 30 And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified.

... And I see no conflict in the grace of a sovereign God.
What conflict do YOU see in these verses that needs explaining?

 

[for_his_glory]

I Agree. I won't go back to see what I wrote to which you're responding the above. I'll only say that those in Romans 1:19-20 were not Jews or Christians (although they could be included) and states simply that man always knew there was a God and had a choice to choose Him and live in His ways,,,or not.


Hebrews 6:4 is speaking to Jews that were thinking of going back to the Law,,,as I previously stated.

Hebrews 10:28-30 is speaking about rejecting the Savior after knowing the truth...this sin will not be covered by Jesus' death.
In this case the Holy Spirit will be insulted and outraged since it is HE that brings God's mercy to people.
Hebrews 10:29

I don't really see in these verses statements about sin...perhaps I overlooked them?

The sinning spoke of in Hebrews 10:26 is the sin of rejecting the Savior.

Well, we will just agree on some things and disagree with other things as I have given all I have to give without repeating myself. It's not about I'm right your wrong thing, but that we only have differences in how we understand scripture and that's alright as we are ever learning as we could never exhaust all the knowledge the scriptures contain.

 

[jasonc]

how one earth, did it become a debate on reformed theology versus arminism?

 

[for_his_glory]

Strong's Concordance definition of blasphemy - contempt

Contempt: the feeling that a person or thing is beneath consideration, worthless, or deserving scorn.

Provocation : action or speech that makes someone annoyed or angry, especially deliberately

Example: Nehemiah 9:18; 26; Ezekiel 35:12-15

Dictionary blasphemy - the act or offense of speaking sacrilegiously (evil) about God or sacred things; provain talk

Blasphemy in scripture: (read the full context as I only picked out certain verses that contain the word blasphemy)

2 Samuel 12:14 Howbeit, because by this deed thou hast given great occasion to the enemies of the LORD to blaspheme, the child also that is born unto thee shall surely die.

Isaiah 52:5 Now therefore, what have I here, saith the LORD, that my people is taken away for nought? they that rule over them make them to howl, saith the LORD; and my name continually every day is blasphemed.

Matthew 9:3 And, behold, certain of the scribes said within themselves, This man blasphemeth.

Matthew 12:31 Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men.

Mark 3:29 But he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal damnation: 30 Because they said, He hath an unclean spirit.

Mark 14:64 Ye have heard the blasphemy: what think ye? And they all condemned him to be guilty of death.

Luke 5: 21 And the scribes and the Pharisees began to reason, saying, Who is this which speaketh blasphemies? Who can forgive sins, but God alone?

Acts 26:11 And I punished them oft in every synagogue, and compelled them to blaspheme; and being exceedingly mad against them, I persecuted them even unto strange cities.

Romans 2:24 For the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles through you, as it is written.

James 2:7 Do not they blaspheme that worthy name by the which ye are called?


This might help us understand what blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is all about in a simpler understanding. It's a conscious and hardened opposition to the truth because the Spirit that is God is truth. Conscious and hardened resistance to the truth leads man away from humility and repentance and without repentance there can be no forgiveness.

Reprobate mind means a depraved, unprincipled or wicked person rejected by God and beyond hope of salvation

Example:

Romans 1:28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; 29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, 30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, 31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: 32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

 

[for_his_glory]

how one earth, did it become a debate on reformed theology versus arminism?

I agree as we need to get back to the topic of the OP instead of debating things that have nothing to do with the topic.

 

[Serving Zion]

Do I remember correctly...are you studying theology?

You probably saw me mention that I have been studying the biblical Hebrew language. I remember at least having implied it in one thread.

But would they hide from God?
If they blaspheme the Holy Spirit, doesn't it mean they no longer care if they do??

It shows us that what was happening was a personal conflict. They were hating Him, and were behaving as enemies to Him. They had inadvertently been drawn to oppose the spirit that was working through Him, and being unaware of the gravity of that offence, Jesus warns them. It's not unusual that a person so enraged is not aware of what they are doing, and so it seems that as soon as they were shown that they were out of control, they did in fact choose to revere God. There is, however, a chance that they would have pushed forward in their hatred of Him, to have become opposers of the spirit that He was operating in (because people are not afraid to do so these days - there is such a doctrine of an antichrist spirit in Christianity, that operates widely throughout churches, and it's common to confront the counterfeit spirits) - yet we do not see any evidence in subsequent scriptures that they had chosen to believe that He was of a Satanic spirit. They only seem to be opposing Him as a man, for being a sinner and a deceiver - essentially because He was not going under their authority. Jesus said that their sin in doing so can readily be forgiven because they might see that they had made wrong assumptions of him - as a man - that probably were of the most likely probability in their reckoning (there were many renegade teachers and revolutionaries in their times). They were themselves of a fallen mind though believing themselves to be of a regenerate mind, so held themselves as the highest example of godliness in the society - therefore incapable of believing that a man who did not honour them could possibly be right in doing so. Also specifically fueled by the fact that He was boldly doing works that they had believed were unlawful (healing on Sabbath, associating with the unclean, breaking customs, opposing temple procedures, condemning their teachings and so forth). He must have genuinely looked like a rebel in their eyes, and "being found in appearance as a man", they had very good grounds to assume He was as phony and fallen as any other charlatan at the time. Thus the devil had many ways to deceive them and provoke them to oppose Him for the man they saw - the "son of man".

Yet, if they had insisted to oppose the spirit by which He did His works, they would have necessarily locked themselves into a position of opposing that spirit - in any way which it manifests, through whomever it manifests - and since the nature of His spirit does not change (eg: God is love), the only way they could blaspheme the spirit is by choosing to worship and promote an alternative spirit above Him - essentially putting their own will over the level of authority that belongs to God, and thereby yielding their service as instruments bringing a spirit against God for which He, in spirit, would never forgive, and the conviction of their error could never be escaped in truth, thus such an offence brings eternal condemnation.

 

[GodsGrace]

He desires, but that doesn't happen

John 3:19-21

And, I agree with faith comes by hearing. Sometimes it takes awhile though. I think I was each one of the kinds of ground in the Sower and the Seed parable, until my ground became ready to take root. I do not go into detail, cause I know you know the Sower and Seed parable.

I'd like to explain why I'm insisting on this and asking questions.

I'm finding, these days, that there are churches that are teaching reformed theology but without stating so. IOW, they're trying to have the reformed doctrines creep in secretly and many persons are repeating calvinist ideas without their even knowing it.

This is rather upsetting to me. If one wants to believe the reformed doctrines that's fine with me,,,it is their right after all.
However, they should at least KNOW and be aware of what they believe and have some capability of defending what they believe --otherwise it shows they are not aware of their doctrinal beliefs.

I agree with what you've said above. Somehow or other, when we hear the gospel, we must be ready to receive it. This is certainly a work of God since it's God that always makes the first move by revealing Himself to man.

Once God has revealed Himself, it's up to each one of us to accept Him and follow in His ways.0

 

[GodsGrace]

W
Did you mean John 14: 6? " No one comes to the Father except through me". I'm not sure what it has to do with John 6:44.
Other than that, I am not going to have the theological convo we have already had.

Hi B,
Please read my post no. 174 because it'll explain why I like to make sure the other member (previously YOU) understands that what they are saying IS reformed theology. We have reconciled in private but I do believe it's important to also say this on an open board.

If a person is stating calvinist doctrine and then saying they are not clavinist,,,then there is a problem and that person should come to understand exactly what their theological belief is. If they do not know...they should find out. I believe I stated this to you back when. This is certainly not meant as an insult,,,I think it's just a good idea to know what one believes to be true.

I don't have a problem with theological conversations...I think they're most important and interesting.

I do want to say something about the Reformed controversy that keeps surfacing. A conclusion I have reached. The participants against come into the debate not with any curiosity at how we arrive at our conclusions, not a genuine interest in our methodology but rather a desire to tear it down and state their own interpretations of what the theology teaches as being the facts. Even when they are told by someone who is Reformed that their statement is incorrect.

If a person is questioning a statement,,,it means they are beyond curiosity and actually understand the reformed faith but do not agree with it.

The reason this is important to some can vary...I can only tell you why it is important to ME....because it turns persons away from God...it makes people feel that they cannot go to God but must wait and see if God chooses them...some cannot be sure of their salvation and reformed theology has no reply for them...I once hard John Piper answer a rather distraught person's question and it was very disturbing to hear his answer to her. It was NOT the answer Christ would have given or Paul or any of the other N.T. writer's. It was totally missing in hope or fact.

You can tell me something you believe is not reformed....but if that is what the reformed faith teaches,,,who should I believe? I know different churches teach differently somewhat...but I always reply to the statement of the other member...I can't know what their church is teaching...but we all know what Luther and Calvin taught.

I am sure this also happens on the other side too. But there is a passive aggressiveness about it. What at first glance appears to be genuine desire to understand is exposed as baiting. The two parties are talking on different planes .

Two different plains is putting it mildly.
How about two different Gods?

As for myself,,,I enjoy speaking to persons that remain calm and can discuss topics...the moment they become upset I pull away.
A topic should be discussed maturely and calmly,,,,we're not here to shout at each other.

Again, we each know what the other believes...the desire to understand should be to understand how verses could be understood so differently...this is why I post scripture as much as possible.

I began my Christianity believing free will, that we make the choice so I know how particular scriptures are being interpreted by A's and how difficult it is to see it another way. Simple expressions and wording, like believe and you will be saved, or God desires all to be saved. And to explain that slight but legitimate (not a matter of twisting) difference in tense, or syntax usage is impossible I guess.

It's not impossible.
The N.T. is a whole book..it's a whole idea.
It's an entire teaching and thought put together by some that knew Christ and some that knew who they knew.

Some scripture is twisted.
What does THE WHOLE WORLD mean to you?
What does BELIEVE AND YOU WILL BE SAVED mean to you?

Does it say IF GOD WILLS YOU TO BELIEVE YOU WILL BE SAVED...
or does it simply say BELIEVE..........AND YOU WILL BE SAVED.

like, for instance: (believe is a verb in this case)

GO TO THE FRIDGE AND GET SOME FOOD.

This clearly means that IF YOU GO TO THE FRIDGE,,,you WILL GET SOME FOOD. The fridge is not coming to you.

(caps for convenience)

Example I tried with the other person. Believe and you will be saved. Me saying it could just as well a statement of what constitutes salvation, belief, as opposed that we have, of our own accord begin believing and THEN we will be saved. I say salvation is believing and that is what it was stating. The other person insisted it was proving free will. So. Asking Reformed believers to explain or justify one scripture against another is an exercise in futility and I wish it would stop. No matter what we say, we will never be understood because no one really wants to understand, just refute. ?

It's not that we don't understand each other...it's that we don't agree. If you make a reformed statement and then get called on it...just simply say you'd rather not discuss your beliefs. And continue with the conversation.

But I can tell you right now...It WILL come up because the divide is too great between the two theologies.
Love in Christ

 

[GodsGrace]

Well, we will just agree on some things and disagree with other things as I have given all I have to give without repeating myself. It's not about I'm right your wrong thing, but that we only have differences in how we understand scripture and that's alright as we are ever learning as we could never exhaust all the knowledge the scriptures contain.

Actually, I think this is a really important issue.
Who do YOU believe Romans 1:19-20 is speaking of?
Just WHO,,,not that I intend to go on with this discussion.

(it does concern blasphemy of the Holy Spirit)

 

[atpollard]

Does it say IF GOD WILLS YOU TO BELIEVE YOU WILL BE SAVED...
or does it simply say BELIEVE..........AND YOU WILL BE SAVED.

Ephesians 2:8 (that invisible book in your Bible)
Romans 8:29-30

Does it say “IF GOD WILLS YOU TO BELIEVE” or does it say “IF I WILL MYSELF TO BELIEVE”? That is the honest question.

We all agree that those who BELIEVE will be SAVED. The question is the first source and original sin. Are we SICK or are we DEAD? The sick choose to cooperate with the PHYSICIAN, while the DEAD just lay there and wait for GOD to perform a miracle.

The Reformed (Calvinists) believe that men are DEAD in sin and GOD performs a miracle to give us a rebirth with a new heart and mind that is alive and desires HIM, so GOD is the first source of our faith and empowers belief among those he predestined and called and justified and glorified [Rom 8:29-30].

To return to the OP topic, since this is relevant:

If MAN is only SICK and the source of his own faith (belief) and, therefore, a contributor to his salvation, then MAN retains the power to reject GOD and choose unbelief at any time. Such a man has the power to commit the UNPARDONABLE SIN.

If MAN is DEAD and GOD the source of man’s faith (belief) because GOD has performed a miracle and given a NEW heart and mind that desire GOD, then MAN has no power to reverse a miracle of GOD and the new mind cannot choose unbelief. Such a man has no power to commit the UNPARDONABLE SIN.

 

[Boaz]

Hi B,
Please read my post no. 174 because it'll explain why I like to make sure the other member (previously YOU) understands that what they are saying IS reformed theology. We have reconciled in private but I do believe it's important to also say this on an open board.

If a person is stating calvinist doctrine and then saying they are not clavinist,,,then there is a problem and that person should come to understand exactly what their theological belief is. If they do not know...they should find out. I believe I stated this to you back when. This is certainly not meant as an insult,,,I think it's just a good idea to know what one believes to be true.

I don't have a problem with theological conversations...I think they're most important and interesting.



If a person is questioning a statement,,,it means they are beyond curiosity and actually understand the reformed faith but do not agree with it.

The reason this is important to some can vary...I can only tell you why it is important to ME....because it turns persons away from God...it makes people feel that they cannot go to God but must wait and see if God chooses them...some cannot be sure of their salvation and reformed theology has no reply for them...I once hard John Piper answer a rather distraught person's question and it was very disturbing to hear his answer to her. It was NOT the answer Christ would have given or Paul or any of the other N.T. writer's. It was totally missing in hope or fact.

You can tell me something you believe is not reformed....but if that is what the reformed faith teaches,,,who should I believe? I know different churches teach differently somewhat...but I always reply to the statement of the other member...I can't know what their church is teaching...but we all know what Luther and Calvin taught.



Two different plains is putting it mildly.
How about two different Gods?

As for myself,,,I enjoy speaking to persons that remain calm and can discuss topics...the moment they become upset I pull away.
A topic should be discussed maturely and calmly,,,,we're not here to shout at each other.

Again, we each know what the other believes...the desire to understand should be to understand how verses could be understood so differently...this is why I post scripture as much as possible.




It's not impossible.
The N.T. is a whole book..it's a whole idea.
It's an entire teaching and thought put together by some that knew Christ and some that knew who they knew.

Some scripture is twisted.
What does THE WHOLE WORLD mean to you?
What does BELIEVE AND YOU WILL BE SAVED mean to you?

Does it say IF GOD WILLS YOU TO BELIEVE YOU WILL BE SAVED...
or does it simply say BELIEVE..........AND YOU WILL BE SAVED.

like, for instance: (believe is a verb in this case)

GO TO THE FRIDGE AND GET SOME FOOD.

This clearly means that IF YOU GO TO THE FRIDGE,,,you WILL GET SOME FOOD. The fridge is not coming to you.

(caps for convenience)





It's not that we don't understand each other...it's that we don't agree. If you make a reformed statement and then get called on it...just simply say you'd rather not discuss your beliefs. And continue with the conversation.

But I can tell you right now...It WILL come up because the divide is too great between the two theologies.
Love in Christ

W
At the risk of getting tangled up in this again------- here goes.
One more time I will try to clear this up!
Post 174
You are assuming that because my explanations of a reformed doctrine differ from your INTERPRETION( not yelling, convenience) of Reformed doctrine that means that I am not properly informed on the doctrine. Who would be the one most able to determine this? Someone who s given the teachings thourghness and exhaustive study, or someone on the outside relying mostly on hearsay and out of context not investigated sentences? I did not learn Reformed Theology in a church, they are difficult to to find and even when you do they mostly are like all other churches, skipping theology and doctrine all together. I am not attending church at the moment. The theology was brought to me by my recently deceased brother twenty years ago. Sure I had trouble with it at first but one thing caught my attention and kept me going in my investigation. It was actually ABOUT God and the cross, Grace and justification, propitiation and atonement sanctification and glorification. The meat I was thristing for. Rather than only being about the wonderful benefits of salvation.
It is the other side(and I don't mean that in a derogatory way, I just have trouble spelling the A name ) that says if I say things that contradict their opinion or interpretation of what R teaches, that I am not R. I know exactly what R teaches and what I believe.
And I admit, it's not for everyone, it is difficult for humans bow down that low to God and let God be God. It did not make me hate God, it made me see Him more clearly, and worship Him more deeply.
When I get into these debates it has always and forever been to correct a misstatement about what R teaches (i.e. it makes God evil, or He created evil or IT IS A DIFFERENT GOD )(that was almost yelling lol)or to answer a question. It has never been to try and convince anyone that they are wrong or convert them to my way of believing. I have said this repeatedly yet it always turns into the other side making it about that and therefore giving zero credibility to the explanation I gave. As though acknowledging that they understand what I said, and that since I am Reformed I am the one who knows, is the same thing as their AGREEING with what I said. So they keep asking me the same question over d over telling me I haven't answered and give us scripture, which I have also done. They won't be satisfied until they get the answer they want, which is me capitulating to their beliefs. So no, the question isn't a genuine desire understand the answer or explanation, it is to argue and debunk what I believe.
My intention has always been to provide UNDERSTANDING . I already KNOW we don't agree and THAT doesn't bother me at all, I don't even think it is important. It is the NOT UNDERSTANDING, the refusal to acknowledge my explanations and answers as valid that bothers me. But I'm about to get over it!
The believe and be saved is a perfect example of what I mean as in your explanation.
I already know that you take Jesus's statement mean that the believing comes from US, our own choice, first.
The question was how does Reformed Theology explain that or line it up with their teachings on free will.
My explanation was that if it is interpreted in a different tense it could just as easily be saying that IF you believe you are saved. You responded, as everyone else did, by just repeating what I already knew that you believed it said.
And that wasn't the question. The question was, how do I interpret it, which I answered. I didn't ask you or anyone to CHANGE their interpretation. I ANSWERED the question.
A more appropriate response would be, I see it is POSSIBLE to see it that way. I don't agree but I see what you saying. Or if you were curious and really wanted to know, you might ask on what basis hermeneutily do I arrive at that interpretation? Because it is arrived at through legitimate hermeneutic means. And that STILL doesn't mean youHave to agree!!

 

[GodsGrace]

W
At the risk of getting tangled up in this again------- here goes.
One more time I will try to clear this up!
Post 174
You are assuming that because my explanations of a reformed doctrine differ from your INTERPRETION( not yelling, convenience) of Reformed doctrine that means that I am not properly informed on the doctrine. Who would be the one most able to determine this? Someone who s given the teachings thourghness and exhaustive study, or someone on the outside relying mostly on hearsay and out of context not investigated sentences? I did not learn Reformed Theology in a church, they are difficult to to find and even when you do they mostly are like all other churches, skipping theology and doctrine all together. I am not attending church at the moment. The theology was brought to me by my recently deceased brother twenty years ago. Sure I had trouble with it at first but one thing caught my attention and kept me going in my investigation. It was actually ABOUT God and the cross, Grace and justification, propitiation and atonement sanctification and glorification. The meat I was thristing for. Rather than only being about the wonderful benefits of salvation.
It is the other side(and I don't mean that in a derogatory way, I just have trouble spelling the A name ) that says if I say things that contradict their opinion or interpretation of what R teaches, that I am not R. I know exactly what R teaches and what I believe.
And I admit, it's not for everyone, it is difficult for humans bow down that low to God and let God be God. It did not make me hate God, it made me see Him more clearly, and worship Him more deeply.
When I get into these debates it has always and forever been to correct a misstatement about what R teaches (i.e. it makes God evil, or He created evil or IT IS A DIFFERENT GOD )(that was almost yelling lol)or to answer a question. It has never been to try and convince anyone that they are wrong or convert them to my way of believing. I have said this repeatedly yet it always turns into the other side making it about that and therefore giving zero credibility to the explanation I gave. As though acknowledging that they understand what I said, and that since I am Reformed I am the one who knows, is the same thing as their AGREEING with what I said. So they keep asking me the same question over d over telling me I haven't answered and give us scripture, which I have also done. They won't be satisfied until they get the answer they want, which is me capitulating to their beliefs. So no, the question isn't a genuine desire understand the answer or explanation, it is to argue and debunk what I believe.
My intention has always been to provide UNDERSTANDING . I already KNOW we don't agree and THAT doesn't bother me at all, I don't even think it is important. It is the NOT UNDERSTANDING, the refusal to acknowledge my explanations and answers as valid that bothers me. But I'm about to get over it!
The believe and be saved is a perfect example of what I mean as in your explanation.
I already know that you take Jesus's statement mean that the believing comes from US, our own choice, first.
The question was how does Reformed Theology explain that or line it up with their teachings on free will.
My explanation was that if it is interpreted in a different tense it could just as easily be saying that IF you believe you are saved. You responded, as everyone else did, by just repeating what I already knew that you believed it said.
And that wasn't the question. The question was, how do I interpret it, which I answered. I didn't ask you or anyone to CHANGE their interpretation. I ANSWERED the question.
A more appropriate response would be, I see it is POSSIBLE to see it that way. I don't agree but I see what you saying. Or if you were curious and really wanted to know, you might ask on what basis hermeneutily do I arrive at that interpretation? Because it is arrived at through legitimate hermeneutic means. And that STILL doesn't mean youHave to agree!!

I think there should be a thread on this....
Look for it.

 

[GodsGrace]

Ephesians 2:8 (that invisible book in your Bible)
Romans 8:29-30

Does it say “IF GOD WILLS YOU TO BELIEVE” or does it say “IF I WILL MYSELF TO BELIEVE”? That is the honest question.

We all agree that those who BELIEVE will be SAVED. The question is the first source and original sin. Are we SICK or are we DEAD? The sick choose to cooperate with the PHYSICIAN, while the DEAD just lay there and wait for GOD to perform a miracle.

The Reformed (Calvinists) believe that men are DEAD in sin and GOD performs a miracle to give us a rebirth with a new heart and mind that is alive and desires HIM, so GOD is the first source of our faith and empowers belief among those he predestined and called and justified and glorified [Rom 8:29-30].

To return to the OP topic, since this is relevant:

If MAN is only SICK and the source of his own faith (belief) and, therefore, a contributor to his salvation, then MAN retains the power to reject GOD and choose unbelief at any time. Such a man has the power to commit the UNPARDONABLE SIN.

If MAN is DEAD and GOD the source of man’s faith (belief) because GOD has performed a miracle and given a NEW heart and mind that desire GOD, then MAN has no power to reverse a miracle of GOD and the new mind cannot choose unbelief. Such a man has no power to commit the UNPARDONABLE SIN.

Have read this A....but my answer must wait till after dinner...
It will concern a thought that had never occurred to me.