Can we Christians agree on these statements?Ver#2

[mondar]

Re: Can we Christians agree on these statements?

Mondar,

the governing body of this site ratified the SoF. We do expect each and every member to become acquainted with it (and the ToS). We don't expect each and every member outside of that body to adhere to it; we will use it as a yardstick of sorts to measure extremely unorthodox views though.

Vic, I had two questions for you...
1---Where is the statement of faith? ------I dont see the answer in your paragraph above.
2---Who has to agree with the Statement of faith? ----You answer this question by saying we do not have to "adhere to it." but go on to make some comment about this statement of faith is a yardstick to measure "extremely unorthodox views." In this last statement of yours, if you are alluding to "particular redemption" as an "extremely unorthodox view," I will be very disappointed. Such a view would lack biblical, historical, and theological insight, and in fact would be schizmatic (1 Cor 1:10).

While I certainly would not demand that another Christian believe in particular redemption and would accept such a one as a brother in the Lord, I will have to say that I believe the scriptures condemns the attitude of calling those who believe in "Limited atonement" to believe a "extrememly unorthodox view" to be sinfully divisive.

Mondar, you need not turn this into a predestiny/election/limited atonement debate.

I must admit astonishment at your statement here. When the original post was made which said...

"Can we all as Christians agree on these statements........
3)We believe Jesus died so we could have eternal life, He died for the sake of all(even though all will not make use of the salvific act)"

Come on Vic........any Freshman theology student should be able to read the intent of that first post. Of course no Calvinist will sign such a statement. Your accusation that I want to "turn this into a predestiny/..." is obviously in error. I did not raise the issue in this thread, or any other thread. The issue of isolating Calvinists was placed by a Catholic in the very first post. Interestingly enough, you pass over that in silence, yet when I take issue with point three, right away you try to silence me. BibleCatholic could have remained silent on that issue, but he chose to wave the flag against Calvinists in #3.

Man, we have enough of those threads we can bump up. But since it was brought up, let me be the last to comment.

Well, I think I would rather be banned from the board then not answer you post. If I am banned, I want to know what channels I have to protest.

My view is a variation of what Drew stated above. I believe in a group of elect, predestined individuals, who are given the "responsibility" to help bring more into the flock. I could never agree to such a limited atonement as you outlined above. I think it does great injustice to the work my Master did on the Cross for His creation; mankind.... and He asks for little more that one's faith.

It is most shocking to me that you would identify with Drew. Drew denies some of the basic soteriological doctrines of Christianity and protestantism. Drew denies justification by faith alone. Will you also identify with Drew's theological views that works are necessary for justification or salvation? What does your doctrinal statement say about such a view? Also, your view on election is not like Drews, and I am surprised that you think it is even close. Drew has never said he believes in any form of individual election. Drew has defended the thesis that Romans 9 is about national Israel and not individuals. He has never stated that God chose any individual for salvation in any way.

Also, I could never believe in your lower view of the power of the atonement. And I do mean you do view the atonement as not being very effective. You see the atonement as not saving. You see mans decision of faith as saving in combination with the atonement. You dont think the atonement even has the power to save completely and absolutely. Your God seems to be in heaven biting his nails that hopefully, maybe, there is a remote possibility that someone will believe in Christ. My my... how God must be concerned that he sent his son to die, and no one believes. Not so in the higher view of the atonement in which God provides the salvatio in the blood of Christ completely, and then gives men faith.

Human responsibility has nothing to do with it... I believe in Human responsibility. In fact, Calvinists were the first to put forth faith as the necessary condition for justification. Have you never heard of sola fide?

There is no Biblical wisdom to the notion that God says, I'm God and I can chose to save whoever I want to save and to Hell with the rest. :o There is a difference between being led into the flock and being bred specifically for the flock. We're not clones or drones, people.

Ok, carry on with the OP.

So tell me Vic, how about a 1v1 debate between you and me on the nature of the atonement. Or will you shoot from the hop as you have done and then hide behind your Op status?

 

[biblecatholic]

Re: Can we Christians agree on these statements?

When the original post was made which said...

"Can we all as Christians agree on these statements........
3)We believe Jesus died so we could have eternal life, He died for the sake of all(even though all will not make use of the salvific act)"

Come on Vic........any Freshman theology student should be able to read the intent of that first post. Of course no Calvinist will sign such a statement. Your accusation that I want to "turn this into a predestiny/..." is obviously in error. I did not raise the issue in this thread, or any other thread. The issue of isolating Calvinists was placed by a Catholic in the very first post. Interestingly enough, you pass over that in silence, yet when I take issue with point three, right away you try to silence me. BibleCatholic could have remained silent on that issue, but he chose to wave the flag against Calvinists in #3.

Mondar,

My apologies, I did not intend to isolate Calvinist. to be honest I haven't really known many Calvinist so my statement on #3 was simply an accident. Calvinism is something I overlooked and I apologize and I commented on #3 assuming all on the board agreed with this....

As you see with #1 I didn't say the word Trinity as to be able to agree with the nonTrinitarians...The Trinity is a dogma of faith for me but I chose to not word it because I was aware that there are some who dont believe...

the only calvinist I thought we had here is RB and he's only crossed my mind in the past day after a nasty message

 

[mondar]

Re: Can we Christians agree on these statements?

When the original post was made which said...

"Can we all as Christians agree on these statements........
3)We believe Jesus died so we could have eternal life, He died for the sake of all(even though all will not make use of the salvific act)"

Come on Vic........any Freshman theology student should be able to read the intent of that first post. Of course no Calvinist will sign such a statement. Your accusation that I want to "turn this into a predestiny/..." is obviously in error. I did not raise the issue in this thread, or any other thread. The issue of isolating Calvinists was placed by a Catholic in the very first post. Interestingly enough, you pass over that in silence, yet when I take issue with point three, right away you try to silence me. BibleCatholic could have remained silent on that issue, but he chose to wave the flag against Calvinists in #3.

Mondar,

My apologies, I did not intend to isolate Calvinist. to be honest I haven't really known many Calvinist so my statement on #3 was simply an accident. Calvinism is something I overlooked and I apologize and I commented on #3 assuming all on the board agreed with this....

As you see with #1 I didn't say the word Trinity as to be able to agree with the nonTrinitarians...The Trinity is a dogma of faith for me but I chose to not word it because I was aware that there are some who dont believe...

the only calvinist I thought we had here is RB and he's only crossed my mind in the past day after a nasty message

Well, I must admit that was a very generous post. Thank you. No offense taken, I hope none given.

 

[Drew]

Re: Can we Christians agree on these statements?

It is most shocking to me that you would identify with Drew. Drew denies some of the basic soteriological doctrines of Christianity and protestantism.

Obviously an editorialization. The fair and correct characterization would be "Drew does not interpret the Scriptures the way that I, mondar, interpret them".

Drew denies justification by faith alone.

Absolutely untrue.

Someone who has (a) read my posts and (b) is willing to step outside the "traditional" paradigm, will know that there is indeed a coherent way to legitimately assert that we are indeed justified by faith in the sense that by faith alone in the present, we are given the Spirit who assures that we will be justified by works in the future. I take Romans 2:7 as it reads:

To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life.

and I also take this seriously:

For it is by grace you have been saved, through faithâ€â€and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God

If someone feels that I have presented an incoherent or faulty model as to how these both can be taken as true, please feel free to explain.

Drew has never said he believes in any form of individual election. Drew has defended the thesis that Romans 9 is about national Israel and not individuals. He has never stated that God chose any individual for salvation in any way.

This is not correct, although here I bear most of the responsibility. I do believe that there are special cases where God has elected people unto salvation in the sense that I believe mondar holds to. I believe this is true in the case of Ephesians 1 and have stated this recently I think. However, I believe I may have also said something contradictory - that God never elects unto salvation. I may have given mixed messages but my belief is that God does not generally elect unto salvation, but has rather clearly done so in the cases of a small set of people as per Ephesians 1.

 

[Drew]

Re: Can we Christians agree on these statements?

Also, I could never believe in your lower view of the power of the atonement. And I do mean you do view the atonement as not being very effective. You see the atonement as not saving. You see mans decision of faith as saving in combination with the atonement. You dont think the atonement even has the power to save completely and absolutely. Your God seems to be in heaven biting his nails that hopefully, maybe, there is a remote possibility that someone will believe in Christ. My my... how God must be concerned that he sent his son to die, and no one believes. Not so in the higher view of the atonement in which God provides the salvatio in the blood of Christ completely, and then gives men faith.

Speaking on the assumption that mondar would also make these same remarks about my view of the atonement, mondar is indeed correct to claim that, under my view, the ultimate justification of a person is indeed a "combination" of divine activity and human activity. I do not deny this for a second. And if someone can make a scriptural case that rules this out, I will change my mind. But it won't do to simply show that certain texts are consistent with "no human involvement" position, the texts would have to rule out the "synergistic" view (that man plays a role).

One faulty line of argument against my view is the view that if man plays a necessary but tiny role in his ultimate justification, he (man) can then legitimately be said to have been responsible for his salvation. This is simply untrue and leverages off the possibility that the reader will conflate a necessary condition with a "substantially sufficient" condition. In more common terms and by way of example: the bed-ridden man who cries out for help in a burning building must cry out or he will die unnoticed. But when he does cry out and a neighbour risks life and limb by entering the building and carrying the man to safety, it is the neighbour who, in any remotely reasonable interpretation, is responsible for the man's rescue.

It is also helpful to bear in mind the implications of "creature-hood". We are creatures, created in the image of God. If our actions are fully determined, directly or even indirectly, by an external agent (God), it becomes unclear if it can be legitimately said of us that we retain creature-hood. We seem to belong more in the category of objects, like the rock whose "actions" are determined by external forces. Or, it becomes unclear as to how we would be nothing more than merely extensions of God himself.

Some people do not like this kind of argument, critiquing it as "human wisdom". I think otherwise - we need to be fair to the relevant concepts. It is indeed legitimate to ask: "What characteristics are conferred on a creature?", "What is entailed in creaturehood?". I suggest that a degree of free agency is required in order for any being to legitimately be denoted as a "creature". We have to honour the relevant conceptual boundaries. I politely suggest that some who argue a "Calvinist" position on election do not properly use the concept of "accountability" - they mount an argument that one can be accountable without freedom of contrary choice. That is not a fair argument as, I would claim, the very concept of "accountability" has "freedom of contrary choice" bundled into it.

 

[mutzrein]

Re: Can we Christians agree on these statements?

Now the question is. Was the passover lamb slain for ALL? Or only those who were in the house that came under the covering of the blood?

A very good question, Mutzrein.

One answered by John himself...

The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world. John 1:29

Regards

So what happened I wonder?

 

[francisdesales]

Re: Can we Christians agree on these statements?

Now the question is. Was the passover lamb slain for ALL? Or only those who were in the house that came under the covering of the blood?

A very good question, Mutzrein.

One answered by John himself...

The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world. John 1:29

Regards

So what happened I wonder?

What happened on what? Do you mean "Why all men are not saved"?

What is clear is that Christ's work on the cross is sufficient to remove sin from all men - to the same degree that Adam brought sin to all men. Romans 5 expresses this very nicely. Paul does not give us the impression that Adam's work was more powerful and universal than Christ's.

Or are you speaking about something else?

Regards

 

[francisdesales]

Re: Can we Christians agree on these statements?

One faulty line of argument against my view is the view that if man plays a necessary but tiny role in his ultimate justification, he (man) can then legitimately be said to have been responsible for his salvation. This is simply untrue and leverages off the possibility that the reader will conflate a necessary condition with a "substantially sufficient" condition. In more common terms and by way of example: the bed-ridden man who cries out for help in a burning building must cry out or he will die unnoticed. But when he does cry out and a neighbour risks life and limb by entering the building and carrying the man to safety, it is the neighbour who, in any remotely reasonable interpretation, is responsible for the man's rescue.

It is also helpful to bear in mind the implications of "creature-hood". We are creatures, created in the image of God. If our actions are fully determined, directly or even indirectly, by an external agent (God), it becomes unclear if it can be legitimately said of us that we retain creature-hood. We seem to belong more in the category of objects, like the rock whose "actions" are determined by external forces. Or, it becomes unclear as to how we would be nothing more than merely extensions of God himself.

Some people do not like this kind of argument, critiquing it as "human wisdom". I think otherwise - we need to be fair to the relevant concepts. It is indeed legitimate to ask: "What characteristics are conferred on a creature?", "What is entailed in creaturehood?". I suggest that a degree of free agency is required in order for any being to legitimately be denoted as a "creature". We have to honour the relevant conceptual boundaries. I politely suggest that some who argue a "Calvinist" position on election do not properly use the concept of "accountability" - they mount an argument that one can be accountable without freedom of contrary choice. That is not a fair argument as, I would claim, the very concept of "accountability" has "freedom of contrary choice" bundled into it.

What an outstanding post...

Regards

 

[MarkT]

Re: Can we Christians agree on these statements?

Also, I could never believe in your lower view of the power of the atonement. And I do mean you do view the atonement as not being very effective. You see the atonement as not saving. You see mans decision of faith as saving in combination with the atonement. You dont think the atonement even has the power to save completely and absolutely. Your God seems to be in heaven biting his nails that hopefully, maybe, there is a remote possibility that someone will believe in Christ. My my... how God must be concerned that he sent his son to die, and no one believes. Not so in the higher view of the atonement in which God provides the salvatio in the blood of Christ completely, and then gives men faith.

Speaking on the assumption that mondar would also make these same remarks about my view of the atonement, mondar is indeed correct to claim that, under my view, the ultimate justification of a person is indeed a "combination" of divine activity and human activity. I do not deny this for a second. And if someone can make a scriptural case that rules this out, I will change my mind. But it won't do to simply show that certain texts are consistent with "no human involvement" position, the texts would have to rule out the "synergistic" view (that man plays a role).

By human do you mean the flesh? Drew, the flesh existed before you were born. Were we not justified when we ate the words of God? Did we not receive the promise of the Spirit when we put on the nature of God? To say it again, were we not justified in our faith when we received the Spirit of God? Did we not receive the Counselor as Jesus said we would? So we put on the new nature. We received the gifts. Can we not discern the truth? Of course we can. We are justified in saying God can do what he said he would do. And he will do it. And it doesn't depend on the exertion of our will. Will we not be further justified when Jesus returns? When you say the human is involved, to what are you referring? The flesh is not involved in this. We must keep our minds on the teachings of God. When we keep his commandments, when we confess our sins, when we pray the LORDs prayer, when we love our brethren, it is not our flesh that does it. In fact, the desire of the flesh is opposed to God. Often we have to overcome our flesh to pray. It is our spirit in agreement with Spirit of God that prays. The inner man is spirit. When we put on the garment of righteousness, then we can pray to the Father and he will hear us.

One faulty line of argument against my view is the view that if man plays a necessary but tiny role in his ultimate justification, he (man) can then legitimately be said to have been responsible for his salvation. This is simply untrue and leverages off the possibility that the reader will conflate a necessary condition with a "substantially sufficient" condition. In more common terms and by way of example: the bed-ridden man who cries out for help in a burning building must cry out or he will die unnoticed. But when he does cry out and a neighbour risks life and limb by entering the building and carrying the man to safety, it is the neighbour who, in any remotely reasonable interpretation, is responsible for the man's rescue.

It is also helpful to bear in mind the implications of "creature-hood". We are creatures, created in the image of God. If our actions are fully determined, directly or even indirectly, by an external agent (God), it becomes unclear if it can be legitimately said of us that we retain creature-hood. We seem to belong more in the category of objects, like the rock whose "actions" are determined by external forces. Or, it becomes unclear as to how we would be nothing more than merely extensions of God himself.

Some people do not like this kind of argument, critiquing it as "human wisdom". I think otherwise - we need to be fair to the relevant concepts. It is indeed legitimate to ask: "What characteristics are conferred on a creature?", "What is entailed in creaturehood?". I suggest that a degree of free agency is required in order for any being to legitimately be denoted as a "creature". We have to honour the relevant conceptual boundaries. I politely suggest that some who argue a "Calvinist" position on election do not properly use the concept of "accountability" - they mount an argument that one can be accountable without freedom of contrary choice. That is not a fair argument as, I would claim, the very concept of "accountability" has "freedom of contrary choice" bundled into it.

[/quote]

As you judge others, you will be judged yourself. Don't let this accountability thing become a stumbling block for you. Yes everyone is accountable but we are not of this world. Have we not died? Are dead men still held accountable? Are you still arguing for accountability? Then you shall be held accountable. Why would you ask for it? Do you want to be judged by God? Because the judgment of God is a fearful thing. Those who say they chose God are ignorant. They don't know God or the ways of God. Those who argue for accountability will be held accountable.

 

[Drew]

Re: Can we Christians agree on these statements?

When you say the human is involved, to what are you referring? The flesh is not involved in this.

Greetings MarkT:

I must confess I did not understand what you posted in relation to what I posted about "accountability". And I am not sure that I understood the rest of your post either.

In any event, I wish to respond to your question in what will probably seem to be a "qualifed" manner.

I believe that every human being retains some degree of autonomy in their actions. There is a mysterious "me" in there somewhere. If that were not so we would, by conceptual necessity, be something other than a "creature" - we would be like other inanimate objects or extensions of God Himself.

I believe that when a person places faith in Jesus (I see this as a "free will" act of acceptance of divine grace), God through the Holy Spirit works in that person to transform them from a state of fallen "flesh" to a state where they essentially are "bi-partite" - they can still, as free agents, elect to "live in the flesh" - the "flesh" has not been totally banished in the "new creature" or they can live according to the Spirit that has been given.

This is the best way I can make sense of this from Romans 8:

12Therefore, brothers, we have an obligationâ€â€but it is not to the sinful nature, to live according to it. 13For if you live according to the sinful nature, you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the misdeeds of the body, you will live, 14because those who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God.

I think this text is clearly directed towards believers and the wording seems to make it clear that even as believers, we can, if choose to, still live in our sinful nature - a nature that has been weakened greatly but not totally impotent.

 

[GraceBwithU]

Re: Can we Christians agree on these statements?

When you say the human is involved, to what are you referring? The flesh is not involved in this.

Greetings MarkT:

I must confess I did not understand what you posted in relation to what I posted about "accountability". And I am not sure that I understood the rest of your post either.

In any event, I wish to respond to your question in what will probably seem to be a "qualifed" manner.

I believe that every human being retains some degree of autonomy in their actions. There is a mysterious "me" in there somewhere. If that were not so we would, by conceptual necessity, be something other than a "creature" - we would be like other inanimate objects or extensions of God Himself.

I believe that when a person places faith in Jesus (I see this as a "free will" act of acceptance of divine grace), God through the Holy Spirit works in that person to transform them from a state of fallen "flesh" to a state where they essentially are "bi-partite" - they can still, as free agents, elect to "live in the flesh" - the "flesh" has not been totally banished in the "new creature" or they can live according to the Spirit that has been given.

This is the best way I can make sense of this from Romans 8:

12Therefore, brothers, we have an obligationâ€â€but it is not to the sinful nature, to live according to it. 13For if you live according to the sinful nature, you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the misdeeds of the body, you will live, 14because those who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God.

I think this text is clearly directed towards believers and the wording seems to make it clear that even as believers, we can, if choose to, still live in our sinful nature - a nature that has been weakened greatly but not totally impotent.

I'm not sure that any of this pertains directly to the OP. Of course I am as guilty as anyone else of getting of the subject of the threads. I think "biblecatholic" was merely stating some very basics that we might agree on. I must commend this person for this attempt. :wink:

 

[Drew]

Re: Can we Christians agree on these statements?

I'm not sure that any of this pertains directly to the OP. Of course I am as guilty as anyone else of getting of the subject of the threads. I think "biblecatholic" was merely stating some very basics that we might agree on. I must commend this person for this attempt. :wink:

Good point - I agree with each of the 5 points in the OP

 

[Vic C.]

Re: Can we Christians agree on these statements?

Vic, I had two questions for you...
1---Where is the statement of faith? ------I dont see the answer in your paragraph above.

Sorry, first Forum, General Talk.

2---Who has to agree with the Statement of faith?

I thought that was clear when I said the governing body of the site ratified it. Usually when something is ratified, it means a group as a whole agrees with it. Simply put, we Admins and Mods all agree to Logan's SoF.

----You answer this question by saying we do not have to "adhere to it." but go on to make some comment about this statement of faith is a yardstick to measure "extremely unorthodox views." In this last statement of yours, if you are alluding to "particular redemption" as an "extremely unorthodox view," I will be very disappointed. Such a view would lack biblical, historical, and theological insight, and in fact would be schizmatic (1 Cor 1:10).

While I certainly would not demand that another Christian believe in particular redemption and would accept such a one as a brother in the Lord, I will have to say that I believe the scriptures condemns the attitude of calling those who believe in "Limited atonement" to believe a "extrememly unorthodox view" to be sinfully divisive.

Wow. :o Nowhere is my post or in any post I've ever made did I ever suggest Limited Atonement to be an unorthodox view. You link two unrelated statements of mine together to come up with that. You might want to dig up the "IS Calvinism Biblical" to read what both Handy and myself said about it. It's neither unorthodox nor unBiblical. It's just not the Biblical interpretation of Scripture I follow 100%.

If you want to read what I consider extremely unorthodox, I will PM you my opinions.

Mondar, you need not turn this into a predestiny/election/limited atonement debate.

I must admit astonishment at your statement here. When the original post was made which said...

"Can we all as Christians agree on these statements........
3)We believe Jesus died so we could have eternal life, He died for the sake of all(even though all will not make use of the salvific act)"

All you had to do was state you disagreed with one or two of the points made with a brief reason why and suggest you'd gladly clarify in another thread. You instead went on to make some definitive statements that resulted in other members wanting to respond. I was simply trying to divert that from happening by trying to be the last to comment. I should have my head examined for thinking that would work. 8-)

Three more quickys and then I will bow out.

I am not prejudice; it doesn't matter to me if the OP was from a RC, you or anyone else. It was something that reflected the ToS and I felt the need to point that out.

Well, I think I would rather be banned from the board then not answer you post. If I am banned, I want to know what channels I have to protest.

Oy vey! No one would ban you for responding to me and no one is going to ban you, at this time, period. As Simon would say, "You're safe". 8-)

Mondar, you are doing what you accused me of doing, shooting from the hip. You must know by now I disagree with many of the beliefs of Drew. Goodness, we've been making a spectacle of ourselves lately. : Anyway, there's no need to be so defensive and I personally apologize for any misunderstanding on my part. So can we please return to the gist of the OP?

Thanks.

 

[MarkT]

Re: Can we Christians agree on these statements?

When you say the human is involved, to what are you referring? The flesh is not involved in this.
Greetings MarkT:

I must confess I did not understand what you posted in relation to what I posted about "accountability". And I am not sure that I understood the rest of your post either.

In any event, I wish to respond to your question in what will probably seem to be a "qualifed" manner.

I believe that every human being retains some degree of autonomy in their actions. There is a mysterious "me" in there somewhere. If that were not so we would, by conceptual necessity, be something other than a "creature" - we would be like other inanimate objects or extensions of God Himself.

I wouldn't say extensions of God but parts of the Word that proceeded from God, yes.

We do have an existence but it is in Christ.

The created thing, the thing that is visible is the house and we are the tenants. We were tenants in this house. We still are, however, we have been raised to a spiritual house. See the parable of the tenants and recall what Jesus said about the wise man who builds his house. That's what we do. We build our house. It is a house of wisdom and knowledge and understanding. We don't own the physical house like you think we do. We are temporary tenants.

I'm not surprised that you don't understand Drew. You keep quoting someone named Wright. Why? He's completely wrong. There's not even a bit of understanding in him.

believe that when a person places faith in Jesus (I see this as a "free will" act of acceptance of divine grace), God through the Holy Spirit works in that person to transform them from a state of fallen "flesh" to a state where they essentially are "bi-partite" - they can still, as free agents, elect to "live in the flesh" - the "flesh" has not been totally banished in the "new creature" or they can live according to the Spirit that has been given.

Faith is a gift from God. Jesus said, 'No one can come to him except the Father draws him' You can't place your faith in Jesus because the faith that comes from God doesn't come from you. It's not something you can turn on or off. Faith comes by hearing and it's a gift of God.

This is the best way I can make sense of this from Romans 8:

12Therefore, brothers, we have an obligationâ€â€but it is not to the sinful nature, to live according to it. 13For if you live according to the sinful nature, you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the misdeeds of the body, you will live, 14because those who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God.

I think this text is clearly directed towards believers and the wording seems to make it clear that even as believers, we can, if choose to, still live in our sinful nature - a nature that has been weakened greatly but not totally impotent.

Paul is describing the trait that unites the sons of God. The sons of God are led by the Spirit of God.

The sinful nature of the flesh; the desire of the flesh towards the pleasures of this world and to not do the thing that we want to do, plus, the temptations of the world, are acting on us to keep us from God. However the Spirit helps us in our weakness. Jesus said no one can snatch us from the Father's hand. Now you say we can choose to live in sin? I don't understand. The sons of God do not choose to live in sin. To suggest that we can choose to live in sin is not something that comes from God.

 

[Drew]

Re: Can we Christians agree on these statements?

To suggest that we can choose to live in sin is not something that comes from God.

I did not suggest this, I merely echo Paul:

12Therefore, brothers, we have an obligationâ€â€but it is not to the sinful nature, to live according to it. 13For if you live according to the sinful nature, you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the misdeeds of the body, you will live, 14because those who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God.

Let's be fair here. Viewed as an isolated text, the "plain sense" of this that indeed the possibility exists for the believer to choose to live according to the sinful nature. That is what the word "if" connotes. Why would Paul write such a thing - clearly expressing the possibility of living according to the sinful nature if that is not what he meant? Do you deny my take on the way this text would be interpreted?

Here is another version of this statement, usiing all the relevant structural elements, yet in an entirely different context:

12Therefore, brothers, we have an obligationâ€â€but it is not to live according to your desire to eat pizza, to live according to it. 13For if you live according to the desire to eat pizza, you will get fat; but if by you put to death the desire to eat pizza, you will remain thin......

Obviously the possibility exists to eat pizza, otherwise why give the warning?

Similarly, I do not think one can square the following from Roman 6 with a belief that the saint cannot choose to allow sin to reign in them:

12Therefore do not let sin reign in your mortal body so that you obey its evil desires. 13Do not offer the parts of your body to sin, as instruments of wickedness, but rather offer yourselves to God, as those who have been brought from death to life; and offer the parts of your body to him as instruments of righteousness

Why give an instruction not to do something if it is impossible to do that very thing?

Maybe I have not understood you.....

 

[mondar]

Vic, I had two questions for you...
1---Where is the statement of faith? ------I dont see the answer in your paragraph above.

Sorry, first Forum, General Talk.

Thank you.

2---Who has to agree with the Statement of faith?

I thought that was clear when I said the governing body of the site ratified it. Usually when something is ratified, it means a group as a whole agrees with it. Simply put, we Admins and Mods all agree to Logan's SoF.

----You answer this question by saying we do not have to "adhere to it." but go on to make some comment about this statement of faith is a yardstick to measure "extremely unorthodox views." In this last statement of yours, if you are alluding to "particular redemption" as an "extremely unorthodox view," I will be very disappointed. Such a view would lack biblical, historical, and theological insight, and in fact would be schizmatic (1 Cor 1:10).

While I certainly would not demand that another Christian believe in particular redemption and would accept such a one as a brother in the Lord, I will have to say that I believe the scriptures condemns the attitude of calling those who believe in "Limited atonement" to believe a "extrememly unorthodox view" to be sinfully divisive.

Wow. :o Nowhere is my post or in any post I've ever made did I ever suggest Limited Atonement to be an unorthodox view. You link two unrelated statements of mine together to come up with that. You might want to dig up the "IS Calvinism Biblical" to read what both Handy and myself said about it. It's neither unorthodox nor unBiblical. It's just not the Biblical interpretation of Scripture I follow 100%.

If you want to read what I consider extremely unorthodox, I will PM you my opinions.[/quote]

Yes, I did link those two statements in your paragraph. Thank you for the clarification.

Mondar, you need not turn this into a predestiny/election/limited atonement debate.

I must admit astonishment at your statement here. When the original post was made which said...

"Can we all as Christians agree on these statements........
3)We believe Jesus died so we could have eternal life, He died for the sake of all(even though all will not make use of the salvific act)"

All you had to do was state you disagreed with one or two of the points made with a brief reason why and suggest you'd gladly clarify in another thread. You instead went on to make some definitive statements that resulted in other members wanting to respond. I was simply trying to divert that from happening by trying to be the last to comment. I should have my head examined for thinking that would work. 8-) [/quote]

Those other members will attempt to respond to nearly everything I say anyways. The surprise is that it was only one who responded. If you go back and read the responses, I hope you notice that the response really had little to do with what I said. Drew talked about election/predestination. I did not even mention that.

Three more quickys and then I will bow out.

I am not prejudice; it doesn't matter to me if the OP was from a RC, you or anyone else. It was something that reflected the ToS and I felt the need to point that out.

If I was unaware of the location and content of the ToS, certainly many other members were unaware of its location and content.

Concerning your prejudice, it might be helpful to avoid inaccurate caricatures of Calvinists.

We're not clones or drones, people.

On the other hand, it might be good if I had a thicker skin. The old style hyper-fundamentalist Arminians (not you) seem to have gotten to me as you noticed below.

Well, I think I would rather be banned from the board then not answer you post. If I am banned, I want to know what channels I have to protest.

Oy vey! No one would ban you for responding to me and no one is going to ban you, at this time, period. As Simon would say, "You're safe". 8-)

Mondar, you are doing what you accused me of doing, shooting from the hip. You must know by now I disagree with many of the beliefs of Drew. Goodness, we've been making a spectacle of ourselves lately. : Anyway, there's no need to be so defensive and I personally apologize for any misunderstanding on my part. So can we please return to the gist of the OP?

Thanks.

Yeah, OK.

 

[MarkT]

Re: Can we Christians agree on these statements?

To suggest that we can choose to live in sin is not something that comes from God.

I did not suggest this, I merely echo Paul:

12Therefore, brothers, we have an obligationâ€â€but it is not to the sinful nature, to live according to it. 13For if you live according to the sinful nature, you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the misdeeds of the body, you will live, 14because those who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God.

Let's be fair here. Viewed as an isolated text, the "plain sense" of this that indeed the possibility exists for the believer to choose to live according to the sinful nature. That is what the word "if" connotes. Why would Paul write such a thing - clearly expressing the possibility of living according to the sinful nature if that is not what he meant? Do you deny my take on the way this text would be interpreted?

You are certainly not echoing Paul. Paul is simply saying we are debtors, not to the flesh, but to the Spirit which gives us life. Those who live according to the flesh will die. He is not talking about God's beloved who are in Rome who are called to be saints. Paul isn't saying they will fall away. In fact, he says he is satisfied that they are full of goodness and filled with knowledge and able to instruct one another. You could say he is simply reminding them that we have died with Christ; that we were baptised into his death and to set their minds on the things of the Spirit. Obviously, in this world, there are temptations and circumstances when we are tested. Paul encourages us. He says, 'Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword?' He says, 'No. In all these things we are more than conquerors through him who loved us.' Romans 8:35 and 37.

Similarly, I do not think one can square the following from Roman 6 with a belief that the saint cannot choose to allow sin to reign in them:

12Therefore do not let sin reign in your mortal body so that you obey its evil desires. 13Do not offer the parts of your body to sin, as instruments of wickedness, but rather offer yourselves to God, as those who have been brought from death to life; and offer the parts of your body to him as instruments of righteousness

Why give an instruction not to do something if it is impossible to do that very thing?

Maybe I have not understood you.....

Why do you keep inserting 'choose'? Paul's admonition is to not let sin reign in our mortal bodies. This is a good teaching. And it's in answer to his question: 'What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin that grace may abound?

It's not an instruction not to do something that is impossible to do.

You keep suggesting that it is possible to do. Why? Do you think your teaching comes from God? Paul says don't do it. You say it is possible to choose it. Yet no one who is led by the Spirit would choose it. No one who is led by the Spirit would say it is possible to choose to let sin reign even though many people do let sin reign. So why do you keep saying it? No one is denying we are sinners. For that we have the LORDs prayer. And I get pulled away by the cares of the world sometimes. But I keep coming back.

What is your purpose in telling people they can fail? We have the assurance it won't happen. In fact, Jesus said the days of tribulation will be shortened for the sake of the elect.

 

[Drew]

Re: Can we Christians agree on these statements?

Similarly, I do not think one can square the following from Roman 6 with a belief that the saint cannot choose to allow sin to reign in them:

12Therefore do not let sin reign in your mortal body so that you obey its evil desires. 13Do not offer the parts of your body to sin, as instruments of wickedness, but rather offer yourselves to God, as those who have been brought from death to life; and offer the parts of your body to him as instruments of righteousness

Why give an instruction not to do something if it is impossible to do that very thing?

Maybe I have not understood you.....

Why do you keep inserting 'choose'? Paul's admonition is to not let sin reign in our mortal bodies. This is a good teaching. And it's in answer to his question: 'What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin that grace may abound?

It's not an instruction not to do something that is impossible to do.

You keep suggesting that it is possible to do. Why? Do you think your teaching comes from God? Paul says don't do it. You say it is possible to choose it. Yet no one who is led by the Spirit would choose it.

What you say here cannot be reconciled with the actual text. I am not the one who writes about choice, Paul is. There is a point in these discussions where one can only appeal to what the text says, and the text above clearly takes the form of an instruction to not let sin reign in your bodies. Paul would not give an instruction to not to "X" if it were impossible to do "X". That would be like a parent instructing his son to "to not get pregnant".

Obviously if we are being instructed to "not let sin reign", Paul must believe that that option is indeed open to us. There seems to be a tendency around here to assume that Paul is a bad writer who cannot express himself clearly. That tendency underlies the idea that Paul does not mean what he says in Romans 2 when he refers to justification by works. I think the overall tenor of his writings show that he was a highly educated, sophisticated thinker who knows how to "say what he means and mean what he says".

So when he instructs us not to let sin reign, he must believe that it is possible for us to let sin reign. Besides, we know from the data of life that all Christians still struggle with this - there is an ongoing battle against the power of sin even for the believer. I believe that Paul writes that the power of sin has been "broken", not entirely done away with.

 

[MarkT]

What you say here cannot be reconciled with the actual text. I am not the one who writes about choice, Paul is.

Where is Paul writing about choice?

There is a point in these discussions where one can only appeal to what the text says, and the text above clearly takes the form of an instruction to not let sin reign in your bodies. Paul would not give an instruction to not to "X" if it were impossible to do "X". That would be like a parent instructing his son to "to not get pregnant".

The understanding is that the flesh is weak and it has passions. When he says, 'Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal bodies, to make you obey their passions', he is refering to the flesh and the desires of the flesh and he is especially talking about becoming a slave to sin. There are pleasure centers in the brain, chemicals are released, hormones, intoxicants, etc. Paul calls the flesh sinful. People get drunk for fun and take drugs for pleasure. It is possible to become addicted to many things, even sin. Some people get high on adultery, lying, stealing, cheating. The desires of flesh come with being human. We didn't choose it.

We can assume that we are all capable of sin, but being in Christ, we can rule over our mortal body and not let it rule over us.

But why would you call it an option or refer to it as a possibility? To suggest it is an option is to disregard the instruction. To refer to it is a possibility is to entertain the idea of letting your body rule over you.

Obviously if we are being instructed to "not let sin reign", Paul must believe that that option is indeed open to us.

Obviously, because we are human, we have desires and impulses, and of course, we have self control. You're saying we have the option to not let sin reign? I don't think Paul is saying that. He's simply saying don't let it reign. Certainly if you had the fear of God, you would not call his instruction an option. I think you would take his words to heart.

Let me ask you, do you consider the commandments optional or choices? Seems to me you are not giving them much weight if you refer to them as 'choices'.

So when he instructs us not to let sin reign, he must believe that it is possible for us to let sin reign. Besides, we know from the data of life that all Christians still struggle with this - there is an ongoing battle against the power of sin even for the believer.

I think he's saying we should not continue in sin in our mortal bodies. He's saying we should not let ourselves become slaves to the sinful passions of the flesh. In other words, don't let the sinful desires of the flesh reign over you and make you obey them. Don't yield your members to sin and sin will not have dominion over you. But yield yourselves to God as men who have been brought from death to life, and your members to God as instruments of righteousness.

I believe that Paul writes that the power of sin has been "broken", not entirely done away with.

Where does he say that? On the contrary, 'we have been set free from sin, and have become slaves of God'. Romans 6:22 In Christ there is no sin, and that's where we are. Don't you know that you have a spiritual body? That which was planted by God?

 

[Drew]

Where is Paul writing about choice?

There comes a point where one has to accept linguistic conventions. I am willing to bet the farm that if you presented the following statement to 1000 North American English speaking persons, who did not have any pre-conceptions about Christian doctrine, they would all clearly discern choice:

12Therefore do not let sin reign in your mortal body so that you obey its evil desires. 13Do not offer the parts of your body to sin, as instruments of wickedness, but rather offer yourselves to God, as those who have been brought from death to life; and offer the parts of your body to him as instruments of righteousness

The phrase "do not let" is an implicit acknowledgement of choice. One would not use this phrase if there were no choice - one would not say to the apple "Do not let yourself fall from the tree".

Same thing with the phrase "Do not offer" - it contains an implicit sense of choice. We would not say to the apple: "do not offer yourelf to the force of gravity". Why not? Because the apple has no choice.